Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sat Nov 13 2004 - 23:54:41 GMT

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching"

    David

    Quote "a full explanation, I think not".
    Fine, by why plug the gaps with a "god".

    Like so much atomist (exclusively logical & scientific) thinking, genes are
    far too convenient / pat an explanation of the detail, (as are the much
    maligned memes), but the gaps in the detail do not invalidate basic
    evolutionary principles. The gaps may be an interesting mystery, but why
    propose a mystical explanation ?

    (Read & Sheldrake are more creative artistically and infintely preferable to
    the convenience of Genesis.)

    Ian

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "David Morey" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 8:19 PM
    Subject: Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

    > MSH: After numerous long discussions with
    > various people, discussions wherein it was obvious my point was made,
    > as my final arguments were left unanswered, I was dismayed to see the
    > same people, a few posts later, talking to someone new but starting
    > over spewing the same old shit.
    >
    > DM: Or maybe some of us thought we just could not get you up a level
    > despite out efforts. Confidence is not a bad thing, but neither is doubt.
    > Think harder, read wider, are you right, nothing you have said has
    > convinced me and 20 years a student of the history of science
    > must mean it is not ignorance about science that makes me disagree
    > with you? So I ask, are you really sure you have a grip on your facts?
    > I think people have offered some means to think outside of the box
    > you are in, I agree with Scott, the fact of evolution is a box even I do
    > not claim to see beyond, but random mutations plus natural selection,
    > its a mechanism that must occur, but a full explanation, I think not.
    > Deeper better ideas are needed. Here's a few:
    >
    > Try Behe's Darwin's Black Box, Sheldrake's New Science of Life,
    > Koestler's The Case of the Midwife Toad, J Narby's The Cosmic Serpent,
    > Geoffrey Read's The Coherent Universe, Woolfson's Life Without Genes
    > -all with good science backgrounds- just for starters.
    >
    > NB I am not keen either or any or the current design theories, most are
    > worst
    > than RM plus NS. Probably Read & Sheldrake offer the most interesting
    > long term prospects.
    >
    > DM
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 14 2004 - 01:32:29 GMT