On Oct 27, 2006, at 8:31 AM, DagT wrote: > Of course, that's why I'm an agnostic, not an atheist or believer > in any God. I can't know, so I just consider the possibilities, > and being outside the system the design theory seems to have much > less success in predicting results of natural processes than the > scientific theory. So, if you are talking about nature I simply use > the most sucessful model. That does not mean that the model is > perfect, it just gives the best results. > > By the way I didn't say anything about the existance of a designer > in the post below, I just said that the argument is wrong because > from my point of view natures ability to make these thing is no > surprise.
Very sensible post, Dag. I started out in life to be a zoologist, shifted gears to photography later. When I was in high school and college they taught that evolution was a proven fact, not a theory. I disagreed. I still feel that way, just because there is so much we don't know, and a lot we should know that is packed away in drawers and on shelves because it doesn't fit. I'm sure evolution works, since we can observe it on a condensed scale, but the question remains if it can explain everything. I'm quite convinced that we have got most of the history/evolution of humans wrong. We've made great, sweeping statements based on a ridiculously small amount of evidence. And we've ignored evidence when it doesn't fit our preconceptions. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
