🚀 go-pugleaf

Marcelo Cantos (marcelo@mds.rmit.edu.au) wrote:
: wf3h@enter.netxx writes:
: 
: > On 3 May 1997 02:33:24 GMT, jgardner@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (John Gardner)
: > wrote:
: > 
: > >wf3h@enter.net wrote:
: > 
: > >: thats what happens with competition and the diversity of
: > >: environments...no designer needed.
: > >
: > >assuming evolution and not weighing evidence.
: > 
: > uh, prove it. science IS evolution and NO designer. unless you have
: > some reason for including magic...
: 
: You've just revealed your ideological bias by presupposing evolution.


Bingo!  You've just been caught in the Giant Double Meaning Trap.
There are two evolutions.  One is the FACT of evolution.  This
fact comes from the observation that life has changed during
the geologic history of the earth.  This is not in doubt as
invalidating it would require invalidating almost all of 
geology and much of chemistry, physics, and astronomy.

The other is the *theory* as to how that change may
have occured.  One may argue about the aptness or inaptness
of the theory, that's fine.

I do believe that the reference to evolution above was a
reference to the FACT of evolution, not to a particular
theory of how it occured.

     ------ Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]