Paul,

>>arbitrarily change with respect to the resultt of testing those theorums. That's called "order" and order does not spontaneously arise from chaos. Order is the result of design and design is the result of thought
>>
>
>Just to add fuel to the fire < g > take a look here.

Trouble causer.. <g>

>
>http://www.sciam.com/explorations/062496kaufman.html

Interesting. I just scanned the article and will read it more thoroughly later. I think that there are certsin factors that are almost always neglected, forgotten about or perhaps overlooked.

For example; let's say that "what is" is indeed the result of random chance factors. First of all it is IMO statistically impossible for all of the proper combinations to coalesce and also gain a self-replicating, stable internal structure - notwithstanding that in many cells there are little 'factories', each doing a particular task, all of which need to be present for the cell to function and live.

Even in that case reason seems to dictate that the 'successful' combination of cells would stand essentially alone atop the great heap of unsuccessful or nearly successful cell combinations. Everyone taking this natural process position will almost universally assert that the statistics are high as well as the total number of possible combinations. Fair enough but where is the evidence of this process? IOW, if nature does things this way we should be up to our eyeballs in other, parallel real-life examples of this chaos in action. Where is the evidence? If there is none then this chaotic nature is, again contraty to its internal intrinsic nature, quite tidy.

IMO the "big" story here is not that there was a success but the utter lack of any corrolary evidence. IOW, all the 'failures'.