Big Bang

[jbor at bigpond.com]

>> As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the only difference is
>> that ID proposes "God" as a first cause, whereas traditional
>> science either can't or won't address that (pretty momentous)
>> issue of a first cause. Not that there's anything wrong with
>> that; agnosticism is a refreshingly honest and healthy stance to
>> adopt in the circumstances.

On 06/10/2005, at 6:55 AM, <craigd at control-z.com> wrote:


> Ran across the following awhile back, thought it rather
> interesting considering the current thread...
>
> Pax et bonum, Craig
>
> IS THERE ANY NEED FOR A FIRST CAUSE?
> by Nathaniel Branden

I wonder if this is the same Nathaniel Branden who is/was the high 
priest of the Ayn Rand organisation. I'd say, from the combination of 
polemic and sophistry which follows, that it must be.

best