In a message dated 9/29/2000 8:27:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Bertvan@aol.com writes:
<<
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,)
>>
Imagine that. Did he reach this conclusion based on scientific evidence? His
claims are based on the same errors IC proponents have made namely that IC
systems cannot arise naturally.
Also his comments about
"recent research in information theory...concludes that random mutations
cannot create complex, biologically-specified genetic information."
Are shown to be unsupported by fact and even contradicted by fact.
http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
or
Evolution of biological complexity
Christoph Adami*,, Charles Ofria,¤, and Travis C. Collier¦
* Kellogg Radiation Laboratory 106-38 and Beckman Institute 139-74,
California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125; and ¦ Division of Organismic
Biology, Ecology, and
Evolution, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095
<< 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
>>
We disagree.
(<< 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.
>>
They conclude based on what they consider failure of Darwinism, that
intelligence is required. As Wesley has shown not only are reliable filters
to detect ID lacking but ID cannot even eliminate natural selection as the
intelligent designer.
I am sure that ID'ers will embrace HJirsch's comments but will they embrace
his hypotheses?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 29 2000 - 13:00:56 EDT