From: Jim Ledbury (jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com)
Date: Tue Oct 19 2004 - 20:49:59 BST
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.
>
jl:
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.
>
jl:
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.
>
>
jl:
Except Pirsig would agree that it's necessary to explain scientific data.
>Besides, Americans consider it wholesome sport to mock arrogance. :-)
>
>
jl:
We non-Americans hadn't noticed :-/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 21:52:28 BST