🚀 go-pugleaf

On 4 May 1997, Paul J. Gans wrote:

> 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.


BJ: To be sure. The entire debate devolves upon a simple-minded, 
literalistic interpretation of Genesis. A more enlightened view might 
have it that evolution is the dance of creation, and that the order which 
science reveals is by design - that might be an interesting debate, at 
least, whereas this continual exchange is really only so much tired 
drivel between subgeniuses who have already made up their minds.