Creationism and other doctrines. Was Mindforth
jya at ieee.org
Tue Dec 10 12:56:34 EST 2002
J.M. Drake, who is a professed creationist, agrees with you that
evolution happens now. Your reference to Occam's razor, itself a matter
of faith, lies at the root of much of the divergence of views here. You
and I believe that simplicity dictates a single (or perhaps a very few)
origin of surviving life on earth. Others, like John, find it much
easier to posit that the various forms were independently created and
intelligently designed. We see the razor that you and I shave with
(except that I grow a beard; see http://users.erols.com/jyavins/ ) as
one that creationists use to cut off their noses. They think the same
about us. So long as one doesn't think that my views make me evil, I'm
happy to have lunch and a beer with him or her.
P.S. It might be fun discuss whether believing in a devil, or in saints
with enough independence to intercede, amounts to polytheism. :-)
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
"Sir Charles W. Shults III" wrote:
> Well, there is one difference with evolution- we can see it working now.
> There are many well known cases of introduced species adapting to a new
> environment and then no longer being able to breed with their parent species.
> The have new digestive enzymes, new markings, etc.
> Check into the wallabies that were accidentally released in Hawaii last
> Also, we use the principles of evolution to help us breed new strains of
> bacteria, plants, and animals. So evolution is a live, working concept and is
> proven to occur.
> Now, whether all life evolved from a common starting point is another
> question. While I believe that it did, and Occam's Razor seems to bear it out
> as well, it is true that nobody witnessed it and it therefore becomes in part a
> matter of faith. But since we understand the forces involved and we have a
> pretty good bulk of data from fossil records, it is a very small leap to say
> that it happened. This is completely opposite somebody proposing that astrology
> works, when there is no active principle defined, no proof, and in fact all
> evidence is to the contrary.
> This can be tested with experiment, but nobody involved in the astrology
> racket will accept the results.
> Chip Shults
> My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
More information about the Neur-sci