In a message dated 7/1/2000 5:58:20 PM, dfsiemensjr@juno.com writes:
<< Seems to me that the quotations are totally irrelevant, like asking
Madelyn Murray O'Hare (I'm not sure of the spelling) as an authority on
the existence of God. If they begin with scientism and atheism, what else
could they say? They are as sophisticated theologically and
philosophically as some folks I knew in Esmeraldas were medically. They
closed their windows when a funeral procession passed by because the
_viento del muerto_ or "wind from the dead" would cause them to be sick.
This of course is the danger when amoebic dysentery is killing as many as
15 a day in a population of no more than 7000.
Dave
>>
Dave:
The quotations are not irrelevant. This claim not just a
philosphically-based claim. It is also a scientifically justifiable one. If
natural selection is demonstrated empirically only to enhance immediate
adaptation to the environment, as it is, then it is a necessary inference
that it has no long range direction as to where this immediate adaptation
will eventually lead. Thus directionless. This is a scientific inference,
not just a philosophical or theological one.
As I wrote elsewhere, it is inescapable that the current scientific
understanding of Darwinian evolution is that it is directionless,
purposeless, and devoid of long range goals. This is an inference from
empirical data on natural selection, supported by prior philosophical
commitments, amplified into general principle.
Of course they are not philosophically sophisticated or theologically
trained. Nevertheless, their declarations carry weight in the scientific
community and in the general public, just as Madelyn Murray O'Hare's
atheistic pronouncements did. They use their authority as scientists to
speak "authoritatively" in areas where they are not authorities.
Best regards,
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 02 2000 - 07:18:16 EDT