183
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 160:
Line 160: + + +
no edit summary
::I read the quote above as (1) being an opinion on the biological theory of evolution and (2) a repudiation of that theory. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::I read the quote above as (1) being an opinion on the biological theory of evolution and (2) a repudiation of that theory. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:: It still reads to me as making no explicit claim, one way or another, as to biological evolution. If anything, it's implicitely contrasting molecules, which don't have descent-with-modification and thus can't have a theory of evolution, with things which do have "continuous change", "growth and decay" and "generation or destruction", and thus might have theories of evolution. Without anything more explicit, I'd be disinclined to come to any conclusion firm enough to include in the article, but it sure sounds to me like he's at least open to the possibility of biological evolution. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 13:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)