Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: re: Gardner on Evolution
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:40:22 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <1992Aug25.223154.1867@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham)  writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.160114.12277@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>  writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.211221.4008@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham)  writes:
>>> In article <SLEATOR.92Aug24092613@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU> news@cs.cmu.edu (Usenet News System) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>	1) Let's assume that you are right.  Macroevolution is bogus.  Just
>>because one theory is incorrect does not mean that another is right.  You
>>cannot "prove" strict creationism simply by proving that a theory (one that
>>is still being formulated/debated about) is false or incomplete.
> 
> If you will notice, I said "Evolution, like creation, is not a verifiable
> fact."  

	OK fine.  


> I simply took exception with a dogmatic statement about the FACT
> of evolution, something you cannot do with either, and calling people
> disagreeing "ignorant creationists."




> 
>>	2) The vertebrate fossil record is quite complete, and it shows
>>a great deal that macroevolution is based upon.  embryology is a another one. 
>>How does one explain that all vetebrates at one time all have:
>>
>>	- a hollow notochord
>>	- gill slits
>>	- a two chambered heart
>>	- a tail
>>
>>	either as adults ( less complex -- not less evolved) or as embryos (
>>more complex or terrestrial vertebrates) More complex critters lose the
>>notochord, tail, and slits, and modify the heart as development continues.
>>
> 

	(sorry about this, but the stuff I wrote just bove was wrong  -- see 
my post)

> This is interesting because this theory (embryology) has been discredited
> since the late 60's even by secular evolutionists.  This is because 
> similarities to structures in more primitve animals is merely
> superficial and has no root in genetics, the real determinant,

	eh?  by whom? I can call up some references that say otherwise if you
like.... 

	btw,  this does have roots in genetics, since
developmental biology is *defined* by the genetic makeup of an organism. 
	all chordates have common vestigal or adult structures because of
similarities in their genetic makeup.
		  

	so I say again, How does this not point to macroevolution?



> 
>>	Mere coincidence?  How does a view of the universe that eliminates
>>macroevolution explain these and other similarities between organisms if they
>>did not evolve from common ancestors?
>>
> 
> This is the root of the issue.  A person who rules out supernaturalistic
> origins must settle for evolution, because there is no other conceivable
> naturalistic solution.

	I don't know about that...


> Even when evolution violates fundamental 
> naturalistic, verifiable laws such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 
> (i.e. closed systems tend to move toward disorder, or randomness, or 
> unusable forms of energy, depending on application), 


	Stop RIGHT THERE.  Are you trying to say that the 2nd law of
thermodynamics rules out evolution?  If so, you'd better check your physics. 
evoilution is possible on earth because earth is not a closed system. 
Enourmous amounts of energy pour into the bioshpere from the sun.  If one has
enough energy, one can make a small part of the universe more ordered and
lower the entropy of that part, while the net entropy of the universestill
increases.  
	The 2nd law of thermodynamics does say that life will one day become
impossible when all energy and matter is in a disorded and low-level state.


> it still must be
> accepted because the only alternative is a supernaturalistic 
> explanantion, no matter its scope.  The profound transition from
> evolution to creation is not scientific, but _philosophical_.


	Why do you imply that there are only two alternatives?  What about
evolution rules out spiritual possibilities?
	Why must everything that is the work of a supernatural force, whether
it be God, Beelzebub, or tree spirits happen in some unexplainable, "magical"
way?



> 
>>=====================================================.

=======================================================================
Brian Harmon    	"Sometimes I think: and sometimes I am"   
Miami University			--Paul Valery
Oxford, Ohio 45056  	"I believe that man will not only endure, 
(513) 529-5417			he will prevail."
  					-- William Faulkner
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------