That evolution doesn't explain creation doesn't imply obligatory Creationism thesis. For example I have already posted an article against Evolution Theory as incomplete theory from Wolfram but it doesn't mean that it demonstrates God:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=378894&highlight=Wolfram#post378894
Wolfram
http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html
"One of the most esteemed documents of modern paleontology is Stephen Jay
Gould's doctoral thesis on shells. According to Gould, the fact that there are
thousands of potential shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual
shell forms, is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's
discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in fact, there
are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them exist in the world.
In other words, you don't need natural selection to pare down evolution to a few
robust forms. Rather, organisms evolve outward to fill all the possible forms
available to them by the rules of cellular automata. Complexity is destinyâand
Darwin becomes a footnote. "I've come to believe," says Wolfram, "that natural
selection is not all that important."
The more sciences he probes, the more Wolfram senses a deeper patternâan
underlying force that defines not only the cosmos but living things as well:
"Biologists," he says, "have never been able to really explain how things get
made, how they develop, and where complicated forms come from. This is my answer.
" He points at the shell, "This mollusk is essentially running a biological
software program. That program appears to be very complex. But once you
understand it, it's actually very simple."
Quote from slowtrend:
Now don't misunderstand : when Wolfram says "that natural selection is not all that important" he doesn't say that natural selection doesn't exist, for it is well known and demonstrated scientifically that it exists, for example mutations of genes exist indeed and it is a RANDOM mechanism since it occurs by errors of copying some ADN or ARN pieces, sometimes it can lead to something useful for the new organism but more often it leads to its death since the probability of obtaining something useful is very low if Nature uses a random law mechanism . It's somehow the same thing when I say that psychology is not primary cause, I don't deny that psychology exists in stock market and can play a role, I pretend that it is only secondary comparatively with what I have discovered as other underlying mechanism. That is to say you can use psychology to help you analysing the market but It will always stay fuzzy even if quantified by model like the one of Sornette or others it stays stochastic approach with loose prediction inherent to this type of model.
Gordon, do us a favor and give us a definition of evolution.
While you are at it, consider these words of a well known scientist.
Robert Jastrow pointed out over twenty-five years ago: âAccording to this story, every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is noneâ
Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).
That's right. There is none.
Many scientists have criticized evolution. Michael Denton wrote this in his 1985 book:
In this book, I have adopted the radical approach. By presenting a systematic critique of the current Darwinian model, ranging from paleontology to molecular biology, I have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework, and that consequently the conservative view is no longer tenable.
The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of the Origin; and throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless.
The anti-evolutionary thesis argued in this book, the idea that life might be fundamentally a discontinuous phenomenon, runs counter to the whole thrust of modern biological thought.... Put simply, no one has ever observed the interconnecting continuum of functional forms linking all known past and present species of life. The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature.
**
Gordon Gekko sees evolution everywhere.
Some agnostic molecular biologists don't.
Give us a definition Gordon.
