Happy Halloween

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Quick Criticism Of Bassett's Essay

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Luis Hamburgh on July 15, 2002 15:09:29 UTC

Aside from this person's lack of understanding, I see nothing significant in this article. Here are a few of his logical errors:

"The woodpecker is uniquely and specially constructed," for example.

-Bassett approaches the woodpecker assuming it has been 'constructed.' Logical derivation, of course, is that some "constructor" exists.

"Evolutionists would like us to believe that the (woodpecker is) ...the end-result of millions of years of blind, unguided chance-mutations."

-A theory that requires no divine intervention is, PER SE, "blind" and "unguided." Can a phenomenon be "blind" and "unguided" if there is no one to "see" and "guide"? (Evolutionary theory does not rule out divine creation, but its ability to explain life without including divine creation pushes a lot of buttons.)

"The fact of the matter is that in an irreducibly complex system, nothing works until everything works."

Evolutionary theory does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, though most creationists would have us believe otherwise.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

"Its incredible design is evidence, not of the cruel, mindless process of evolution, but of a loving, all-wise and intelligent Creator God."

Again, Bassett is working from an assumption of a divine 'mind' -- a God. This is an assumption Evolutionary Theory does not make, and does not require. You cannot properly consider a theory's conclusions if you assume its premise is wrong or incomplete. Of course, it's fine to assert that a theory's premise is incomplete, but you must explain HOW the premise is incomplete. Bassett has skipped this important step.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins