Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: Another attack on Evolution



I think Libby (of C14 fame) was an early researcher on this subject
(life origin).

Discovery of the ubiquity of not very simple organic molecules
reinforces Libby's suppositions.

bc

Jack Uretsky wrote:

Emphatically not! Your two statements do not appear in any scientific
literature of which I am aware.

Perhaps you have not taken the trouble to familiarize yourself with
evolutionist thinking. Stephen Jay Gould is always a fun read; ny current
favorite is Lynn Helena Caporale's very readable <Darwin in the Genome>,
which includes some fascinating (I think) speculations about forced
acceleration of some evolutionary processes.

Origins of life is a currrently hot research topic; see Freeman Dyson and
John Maynard Smith for semi-popular expositions.

Naturally, I am expecting you to give the same respectful hearing to these
views that you have asked for your own views that you declare are
"christian".
Regards,
Jack

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, James E Mackey wrote:



I believe there is more controversy about the conclusions of
philosophical evolution, i..e. man is nothing but an animal and
everything originated from inanimate atoms, than that statement allows,
unless we chose to define a requirement to be a scientist that he/she
must accept evolution. Is this what you mean?
James Mackey

Jack Uretsky wrote:



The state should certainly teach about current scientific research
into the origin of life, which may, after all, be a current process both
on earth and other planets. There is no controversy in the scientific
community about the broad outlines of evolution - unless you use an
extremely liberal definition of the word scientist.
Regards,
Jack
Supplemental reading suggested by request


On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, James E Mackey wrote:





John Clement wrote:





http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3412552

Panel OKs bill to add footnote to evolution
Disclaimer: Committee insists there is no consensus on the origins of people
By Matt Canham
The Salt Lake Tribune

A Senate committee split along party lines Tuesday determined that evolution
should continue being taught in public schools - but with a disclaimer.
SB96, sponsored by West Jordan Republican Sen. Chris Buttars, would
require science teachers to specify that the state does not endorse any
scientific theory about the origins of life or the present state of man





The state should not endorse any specific theory about the origin of life!





and that scientists are not in complete agreement on evolutionary theory.






This is, of course, a true statement!

James Mackey





-----------------------------
There is also an article in a local paper in Houston by Molly Ivins where
she says the governor of TX is in favor of teaching creationism in the
public schools. I have not verified this particular claim.
-----------------------------

I think it is quite clear that Republicans are heading towards theocracy by
getting into bed with the religious right. At one time neither party would
have embraced a particular religious sect, but no more. Conservatives like
Eisenhower, Nixon, and Golwater would have been shocked by this alliance.
Actually the rise of fundamentalism in the US is actually parallel to the
rise of fundamentalism in the Middle East.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX






--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley





--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley




_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l