Hi Glenn, All:
Thanks for the referral to the two US News articles on evolution and
intelligent design. Both were full of holes (unsupported assertions and
omissions), but the biggest hole of all was in the very first paragraph of
the evolution article when the author wrote:
"And yet that fossil represents only a recent chapter in a grander story,
beginning with the first single-celled life that arose and began evolving
some 3.8 billion years ago."
Oops-a single-cell life suddenly arose. How? Blank out. The other article
put it well: "Somewhere, somehow, something intervened in evolution."
That was supposed to be a put down of ID. But it also summed up
beautifully the unexplained appearance of the first single cell.
Personally I have no quarrel with Darwinian evolution as an explanation
of biological change as far as it goes. It explains microevolution well,
like those mutating little viruses and chemical warfare plants. But,
"punctuated equilibrium" sounds like a unverifiable leap of faith to me.
And those gaps in the fossil record can't be easily brushed off by
appealing to geological catastrophes. It's awfully easy if you believe in
the Darwinian story to rationalize your way out of any challenge. Blame
it on the weather.
Which brings up the biggest problem of all: a theory that purports to
explain everything explains nothing. Unfortunately for us believers, that
truism could just as well apply to the MOQ.
Still waiting for others to chime in on the question, "Does the MOQ
support purpose in evolution?"
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