On 6/3/05, Jim Devine <jdevine03 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >There are no "accidents" in the process of evolution. <
>
> I wrote:
> > what about mutations (e.g., due to cosmic rays) or genetic drift? what
> > about the meteor that seems to have wiped out the dinosaurs?
>
> Tommy Kelly wrote:
> > Okay, in the topics of "mutations" the word accident might be suitable, but if it is a natural biological process it must be more natural than accidental.
>
> > I don't consider meteor crashes to be accidental, since it too is a natural – in this case, cosmological – process. To say it was an accident is to say it might have been design – read: created – to happen. Since I live in Alabama, I know that argument can be used as a linking point for people who believe in the Intelligent Design.<
>
> of course, it's a matter of what one means by "accident." But the
> process of natural evolution inherently involves "accidental" matters.
> Mutations, genetic drift, unpredicted changes in the geological
> environment, strange results from normal reproduction, etc. create an
> extremely varied result. Then selection happens, culling out the
> creatures that can't survive to reproduce in sufficient numbers.
>
> The idea that accidents having a role opens the door for IDiotic
> theory isn't helpful. Even if ID is knocked down, some new creationist
> theory will arise. So what Darwinists should do is to stop pretending
> that their theory explains everything (as most have already). Any
> theory that pretends to explain everything is likely to be
> tautological.
> --
> Jim Devine
> "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
> and let people talk.) -- Karl M., paraphrasing Dante A.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Michael Pugliese