Hi Andrea, Lawry:
Thanks to you both for excellent posts on the Darwinism vs. Intelligent
Design debate. While I found Lawry's "missing links are to be expected"
excuse to be less than totally convincing because it has been
countered by the "no matter how many bones we dig up, the gaps still
remain" retort, there was an air of "reasonableness" about it that was
refreshing. In that respect, I found the following from Andrea to be
eminently sensible:
> One thing to note, however, is that *no* theory about the past and reasons
> why of the past can ever be falsified; so either we decide that we will
> have no scientific theory on the origin of life, or leave Popper's
> principles behind for these special cases. I think the latter was chosen
> and, since the past is gone, we stick to another set of reasonable
> principles, such as, "it is coherent with all the physical and natural laws
> we know, with evidence from the past such as fossils, is sufficient to
> explain the current situation as a result of the theoretical past process,
> its dynamics can be reproduced here and now exactly in the way we would
> expect to be able to reproduce them."... Or something on those lines.
Andrea also mentioned that "reasons why" are beyond the purview of
Popper's falsification test. Pirsig raised the issue, "Why survive?" and
proceeded to supply the answer based on MOQ principles. So I ask
specifically of you gentlemen the same question I posed in a previous
post today: "Is Pirsig a creationist?"
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:28 BST