Liste des Groupes | Revenir à t origins |
Look, we'll probably always strongly disagree, but a rhetorical boxing match is at the expense of interesting discussion. I am willing to examine the less certain aspects of my own position.I'm curious as to how you define a mainstream Christian. Is Martin, a Roman Catholic, a mainstream Christian? Is Ron, a Methodist, a mainstream Christian? Was I, when I was an Anglican, a mainstream Christian? Was Theodosius Dobzhansky, a practising Eastern Orthodox Christian, a mainstream Christian? Or do you just mean someone who follows Southern Baptist orthodoxy?
1. I've been quite open about being a mainstream Christian,
therefore belief in an omniscient designer is assumed. The only reason I mentioned it here was to contrast solution space access, even at risk of stating the obvious. Not sure what your concern with this is?--
2. As I said above, you interpreted me to be saying "that evolution HAS to explore ALL available search space." I clarified that my meaning was not that, but rather the postulate "that evolution would NOT be able to explore all available search space." Do you accept this?
3. I can appreciate there is some frustration in relation to the "what, why, where, and how" questions. I'm not actively avoiding them, and have given some broad suggestions here and there.
An example I've give before is this: it is entirely valid to seek to show that human induced global warming is a real problem, regardless of whether or not you have a solution. Similarly, it is entirely valid to seek to show that naturalistic explanations of origins are inadequate, regardless of whether or not you offer an alternative hypothesis. That would in and of itself be of profound importance and value. Offering an alternative hypothesis (naturalistic or supernatural) would be also be of profound importance and value, but not necessary to validate the former.
Open to exploring this further.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.