More hogwash... (I actually consulted to a swine breeder once working
on a cutting edge estimated breeding value (EBV) genetics tracking
program, so I know what hogwash (i.e. sweetwater) smells like.)
Sounds like a Roger Penrose
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140145346/qid=989070448/sr=1-4/ref=sc_b_5/107-8323200-7119725
or Frank J. Tipler
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385467990/qid=989070274/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_2/107-8323200-7119725
theory. What a waste of time. Mental masturbation.
sdw
rbfar@ebuilt.com wrote:
>
> > Hogwash. Genes didn't spring fully formed. Or cells (there's a movie
> > where the main protagonist decides to believe in God/creation because a
> > 'cell' couldn't have sprung into existance), or even DNA/RNA.
> >
> > These kinds of computations implying complete knowledge of all
> > mechanisms and their complexity, obviously not present three decades
> > ago.
>
> Stephen (and everyone else on Fork). What are your thoughts on the theory
> of "Irreducible Complexity"? For those of you who are unfamiliar with it,
> it basically says that some mechanisms are more than sum of their parts, and
> therefore, hold information that their parts could not have otherwise held.
>
> Subsequently, "Irreducible Complexity" tries to prove that there is a God
> based on this assumption.
>
> Has anyone done any reading on this? What do you guys/gals think about
> this?
>
> R
-- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 08:04:39 PDT