Let`s say for the sake of argument that a person came upon the New River Gorge Bridge [her in good old WV] there was no evidence of a human population present, just a group of chipmunks. Let`s say this person, confronted only with the bridge and the chipmunks, noticed that every so often, that a chipmunk would inadvertly dislodge a small rock that would by pure chance land on top of a previously dislodged rock at the bottom of the gorge. As a consequence of this empirical evidence, he proposed a mechanism whereby the chipmunks "built" the bridge. This qualifies as a theory. It is a scientfic construct in that it aids in the explanation of the presence of the bridge. It is valid only to the extent that it utilizes empirical observation and what is known by the observer. Does a theory, by definition, yeild the truth? No. While chipmunks building a bridge qualifies as a valid assumption, it is mathematically impossible. The same can be said of the origin of life through a random process. This theory defies both the first and second thermodynmaic laws. Before you attempt to respond to this by the "open system" argument, you should realize that merely subjecting inert matter to energy in no way satisfactorialy explains the origination of the information system that allows an organism to store the energy that is introduced into it. This "theory" does not allow us to properly understand the complexity in nature any more than the chipmunks and the bridge.

• What use would the chipmunks have for a bridge? - And do they have the technology of steel and concreate? - June 27, 2000 - 04:01 UTC