> > [Craig] > > See "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. > > [Platt] > Can you pass on his answers in a few sentences? Or does he beat around the > bush? > > [Krimel] > Craig, don't waste your time. It's been tried before. > > Platt, if you aren't going to make an effort to educate yourself, you can > just continue to make the kinds of ignorant statements you so dearly love > making.
[Platt] What ignorant statements? [Krimel] Here are some. I must have archived my MoQ folder as they only go back about a year. But if you want more I can find thm for you. 6/18/07 Right. Science hasn't a clue of how order emerges from disorder, or meaning from chaos. 6/19/07 It's the view of current science I find lacking in explanatory power, like attributing what can't be explained to "emergence" and "chance." 6/18/07 I have some problems with Darwinian evolution because it attributes change to chance mutations and changes in the the environment. The probabilities of dice-throwing resulting in even the complexity of a cell are astronomical. 5/31/07 As noted in a previous post, the evolutionist's explanation of how wings developed is really lame. Kipling's Just So stories are more believable. 5/30/07 And both Pirsig and Wilber find the secularist version of evolution fails to explain how and why the inner life of conscious awareness created the space for conceptual possibilities. 5/29/07 All evolution is speculation because no one was there to observe the evolving animal, and no one has been able to experimentally reproduce the creation of a new species except possible at the very lowest levels, like viruses. 5/23/07 If you can specify the specific individual animal that moved evolution along you will be a hero among biologists and probably receive a Nobel prize. Maybe it was that half-bird, half-dinosaur that was found in a fossil. But I would look for its predecessor and the one before that and the one before that. 3/8/07 Since evolution is "impossible to observe" it does seem to be outside science which, if I'm not mistaken, requires observation to establish the validity of it's theories. 3/8/07 According to Wikipedia, quarks are a "theoretical construct." Darwinian evolution appears to be in the same category. 5/20/07 Are you saying chance, as in chance mutations, plays no role in Darwinian evolution? Without it, the whole theory collapses. 11/29/07 "Chance" is no better explanation for a singular event than "miracle." > [Krimel] > Where in Lila does Pirsig talk about the beginning of life? [Platt] Read the book. [Krimel] I even double checked. I do not find a discussion of how self replicating molecules got a foothold on Earth, Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
