Re: MD On Faith

From: Jim Ledbury (
Date: Tue Oct 19 2004 - 20:49:59 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD On Faith"

    Hi Platt,

    Platt Holden wrote:

    >I'm tired of Darwinian acolytes who presuppose they have the one right
    >explanation for how we got here, especially since Darwin's theory is not
    >reproducible and thus not provable (or falsifiable) by science's own
    >standards of proof.

    Your position is more dogmatic that that of the Darwinists.

    >Just as science cannot explain how neural activity
    >produces consciousness, it cannot explain how the complexity of bacteria
    >could have been formed by accident.

    As it's coming up for pantomime season: oh, no they didn't!

    MoQ doesn't explain how anything gives rise to consciousness, nor does
    it explain how bacteria arose. Guess what - I think it tries to poke
    science and say: "hey! Matter is aware and evolves! What do you think
    of that?" And then leaves science (a pencil written rather than a stone
    engraved body of knowledge) to try to work it out.

    >But, there's really no point in
    >arguing the pros and cons of Darwinian theory on this forum. There are
    >plenty of other places for that. What we ought to be discussing is
    >Pirsig's evolutionary theory based on a transcendent moral force.

    Except Pirsig would agree that it's necessary to explain scientific data.

    >Besides, Americans consider it wholesome sport to mock arrogance. :-)

    We non-Americans hadn't noticed :-/

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 21:52:28 BST