Re: ID or not ID, is that the question?
I am not so sure that ID *has* to be the 'question.' I do think it might answer a lot of things that "might" be but I think that there is problem with FORM ( this occurred in philosophy with WIttgenstein and liguistics with Chomsky) that has a pure biological component being covered over by Darwinians today, having to do with odd shaped creatures.
I know Carl well enough to suggest that his writings only butress standard technical science writing despite his good grasp of the science itself. He would not see the biology that I do.
I think we might be seeing parasitism in a wrong fleshy way. This is hard to explain. The following two pictures from
indicate that any series of Zimmer's presentation
or any one-eyed dog he might show
are NOT where to start.
I think these fused phenotypic illustrations reveal something that Croizat was trying to work through in Principia Botanica.
interpretation of the root
5 years ago I came to a halt in reading that work because I could not find any way to continue to work through the ratios he presented MATHEMATICALLY (1/2,2/3,3/8...) but with these images of not dogs nor snakes I see some hope to continue my reading of plant life.
I think learning to read books the way I see nature is a better indication than the simple history that creationists had not considered God creating unfit creatures.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-13-2006 08:30 AM
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 105 by Nighttrain, posted 04-12-2006 6:38 PM|| ||Nighttrain has not yet responded|