Intelligent Design - the Creationists' Latest Wheeze

[Rcfchess at aol.com]

In a message dated 09/29/2005 10:28:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jp3214 at earthlink.net writes:


On  Sep 29, 2005, at 9:53 AM, John Carvill wrote:

>
> Well just  step right in and attack me, why don't you?  I never used the
>  word 'unscientific', I said ID was pseudo-science. We could argue on 
>  and
> on about that. I wasn't really making 'points', I could sum up  my
> reaction to ID as, "Aw, c'mon!"
>
>
> Well I  haven't read the article you've linked to, but in any case I 
>  only
> mentioned what the theory of evolution had done for religion,  ie.
> provided a scientific alternative which is a good deal more  persuasive
> than religion's supernatural mumbo jumbo, and has only  increased in
> plausibility over time, which is the opposite of how  religion has begun
> to lose its grip as humans have become more  enlightened.
>

Persuasive? plausibility? Which part of  evolutionary theory is
so persuasive or plausible? I think you're just  reflexively genuflecting
to those "priests" of a lesser god, unless you'd  care to get more
specific about that  catechism.


WELL, HOW ABOUT CARBON DATING, FOR ONE  THING?!





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20050929/0c7f6f31/attachment.html>