>Ralph
> >Hi Bertvan
> >Since you brought up the word "simplistic", could you give us your
> >understanding of it? No sense wasting time and energy if we're
> >working under different definitions. My own definition implies
> >simple, uncomplicated, no or few layers or levels, etc.
>
>Bertvan
>Hi Ralph,
>I use simplistic to describe a too-simple-to-be-credible explanation for a
>complex process. I realize that meaning will always be subjective. What is
>credible to one is not credible to another.
>Bertvan
Hi Bertvan:
What you say is too true. Anyway, I'm glad I asked because "simplistic" does
not carry the credible/incredible meaning for me that it has for you. So,
going
back to what you said earlier, you find random variation and natural selection
to be "too simple to be credible"? Do you feel creationism is simplistic?
I would assume not since strict creationism says God did it and, assuming
the standard definition of a god as possessing omnipotence and omniscience,
it should be easy to believe such a powerful entity created the complexity
we see. So I would guess that, with your definition of simplistic, you do not
find creationism "too simple to be credible"? Of course, if you were
atheistic
(I know you're not), the existence of such a supreme being might be
"simplistic"
(your definition again).
If the above is true, then I suppose the same would apply to a belief
that god (or something) engaged in certain acts of special creation
at important times in the history of evolution to create the diversity we see.
Your own theory involves "intelligence" of some sort, instead of a god or
alien or something. That's what keeps your idea from being simplistic?
I think I understand now why you refer to random variation and natural
selection as simplistic. I can't sign on to your ideas as yet because I
find them still too-unproven-to-be-credible. But I do want to thank you
for taking the time to make your terms clearer.
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 17:29:57 EDT