Hi Platt and all on the creation vs. evolution thread
I have been staying out of this one. But, the best book explaining and
defend evolution I have ever read was Arthur Koestlers: The Ghost in the
Machine.
It is from trying to understand and explain how life evolved into us humans
that Koestler first posited the idea of the Holon!!! Using the idea of the
Holon he was able to explain how evolution does work and why there are
seeming missing links in the chain of evolution. The system of evolution
does not need to work with each step of the process being a single distinct
creature. The process is one of using already existing units, Holons to
make 'new' living things, new species in the continuum of evolving life.
Check out Koestler's "The Ghost In the Machine."
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: MD Creationism.
> 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