In article <4pilbm$69t at ren.cei.net>, lkh at mail.cei.net says...
> >I doubt Darwin would agree on this point. The "top rung" of what?
The
> >notions of "higher and lower" were not Darwinian. As I recall, Huxely
> >addressed this in his presentation to the Royal Academy. I believe he
> >slammed Wilburforce (sp) for a similar misrepresentation.
>> Of course they are not Darwinian. If you care to digress into a
> discussion of Evolution I would be most agreeable. But that is not
> this thread. Evolution is true. The method assumptions are in many
> parts not. And a person who argues a defense of a theory has no leg to
> stand on but the theory as it is after all just an assumption of
> observable outcomes. The cause of which has no relevance to the
> observation and likewise no relevance to the observer.
I hope I am not the only one whose response to this last paragraph was:
"Huh?"
Would you mind rephrasing this?
