Quoting Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [Platt]
> First, I'm not the only one who thinks Darwinian theory is full of holes.
> Many smarter than me believe it leaves much to be desired.
>
> [Krimel]
> So let me get this right two trillion flies can't be wrong? Perhaps you
> should eat excrement.
So let me get this right. You have no education?
> [Platt]
> Second, I do not believe evolution occurs through divine intervention.
>
> {Krimel}
> OK
>
> [Platt]
> Third, I think Pirsig is on to something with his natural force that pulls
> the universe as we know it towards greater versatility and freedom. I
> consider this to be a "life force" on a par with other types of physical
> energies. I buy the idea that this force is represented to us as
> consciousness.
>
> [Krimel]
> So you reject the very foundation of modern science. You reject 2000 of
> Christian heritage. And you are on board with some imaginary force?
Imaginary? Hardly. Great oaks from little acorns grow.
> Odd that
> this life force seems to cling so closely to this planet where sunlight
> warms everything to just the right temperature for interesting complex
> things to happen.
Oops. Things just happen when it gets warm enough.
> It's probability just a coincidence though. But since you
> buy this life force business could I interest you in some real estate in
> South Florida?
Such a deal back in the 30's.
> [Platt]
> Now how all this works to evolve new species and such I leave to the
> experts.
>
> {Krimel]
> If this is the case why are you rejecting what they are telling you?
Because the experts have different views. Not everyone agrees with your mentor,
Dawkins.
> [Platt]
> I notice in Wikipedia that there are various developments in evolutionary
> theory such as symbiogenesis, evo-devo, neo-structuralism, eusociality,
> horizontal gene transfer and who knows what else, suggesting to me that the
> theory is far from settled or complete.
>
> [Krimel]
> One of the highlights of a great scientific theory is that is spark further
> study. It opens up new ways of thinking. Why in the world would you think
> that science is even supposed to be complete. It was this need for
> completeness that kept popes and priests in business for thousands of years.
> You want to bring them back?
So why do you claim Darwinian evolution is settled theory?
> [Platt]
> So if I'm "flailing around" I'm in good company. To put it in the postmodern
> vernacular, "My mind is set on keeping an open mind."
>
> [Krimel]
> If you think Johnson and Behe and the rest of the right wing religious nuts
> spouting intelligent design are good company; I say you deserve each other.
Like you and Dawkins deserve each other.
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
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/
