Ralph
>He made no mention of ID, at least not in the excerpt you passed along.
>Surely, if he thought he had proof (or even just a strong presumption) of
>ID, he would have said something? Here is his vision:
>>I think that understanding function and its chemical
>>basis offers a much more secure foundation for biology
>I'm confident that if anyone can squeeze ID out of that, you're the man,
Bertvan:
Hi Ralph, you are reading more into what Dr. Hirsch said than I could. His
message was that Darwinism is fatally flawed. (Yet, another scientist coming
to that conclusion,)
I've found most ID supporters more open to ideas than merely concerned with
defending a particular theory such as ID. They don't consider Darwinism
(chance plus natural selection) a reasonable explanation of nature's
complexity, but if someone has something other than ID to suggest, I'm
confident Steve, and most other ID supporters, would consider it.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 29 2000 - 11:27:13 EDT