I am a little scared. I find myself agreeing with Platt.
Is that a pig flying? I think intelligence is
as a big of a trap for evolution theorists as consciousness is for cognitive
scientists. Intelligence like consciousness is not something that "emerged"
out of nothing. I think Scott hit it right on target when
he said not to look for explanations of consciousness but that
things will be explained in terms of consciousness.
I think evolutionists think they have explained intelligence.
This "does evolution has a purpose" is tricky because
I agree with Wim 'Creative evolution' BOTH blindly moves away from chaos/DQ
AND makes static patterns of values migrate toward DQ/freedom.
As John's dad said if its not paradoxical it's not true.
erin
>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