Condensed letter: 3 responses
Part 1)
Bill Payne writes:
>The most explicit conclusions that I have heard drawn from the statement
>you are looking for are in the statement made by Will Provine during one
>of his debates with Phil Johnson:
>
>"The philosophical conclusions of Darwinism have been strongly supported
>by modern evolutionary biology: no gods, no purposes in nature, no life
>after death, no ultimate foundations for ethics, no ultimate meaning for
>life, no free will for humans."
>
>Will said that since we have no free will, then criminals should not be
>punished. His idea is that of a totally mechanistic universe. The quote
>above can be found at:
>
>http://www.arn.org/docs/guides/stan_gd1.htm
>
>Bill
I've seen that web page. What you quote as a "statement made by
Will Provine" appears to be a summary of notes from the debate.
At least that's all I can infer from the information provided
by the web page. If you have access to the actual recording or
direct transcript, perhaps you could tell us if this is an
actual quote. It's certainly possible that Will said something
like this, but I think it's important to be clear about
references.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Part 2)
In response to Bill's letter, Moorad Alexanian suggests:
From: Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 30 2001 - 08:39:37 EST
[...]
> Provine should be committed. Moorad
There's nothing quite like confinement and coercion to
convince people that their will is free.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Part 3)
There seems to be a strong consensus that the use of science
and scientific discoveries to determine the presence or absence
of "purpose" in the universe is highly suspect, independent of
whether the speaker is a theist or atheist. Yet some apparently
feel that the comments of atheist scientists about evolution
and purpose have some "extra" impact. So far, I've only seen
notes from: a) atheist scientists who feel that evolution (and
modern science) demonstrate a lack of purpose in the world,
b) theists who agree that evolution implies a lack of purpose,
and c) theists who disagree about the linkage between evolution
and purposeless.
Yet we haven't heard about: d) non-theist scientists who feel that
evolution (& science) indicates nothing about the presence or
absence of purpose in the universe. And why do type-a and type-b
commentators disdain type-c respondents and ignore type-d
opinions entirely? I suggest it's because the latter two groups
refuse to play the game of the two former groups and thus
tend to get branded as "heretics to the cause."
Well, for the record, and you can quote me *word-for-word*
in this paragraph (prediction: not that anyone will bother),
I am non-theist scientist who definitely believes that Provine's
and Dawkin's beliefs about evolution and purposelessness are
rubbish. By symmetry, I also think that P. Johnson et al's
positions are intellectually deficient too. The validity of
evolution does not imply anything about purpose. It cannot.
It also implies nothing about the existence of God. Well,
don't we all feel honored now, a card-carrying member of the
scientific priesthood has deigned to speak on a trivial matter.
Now bugger off and send me more grants. And next time, don't forget
to wipe your shoes before coming in: Do you have any idea how
much it costs to keep an ivory tower looking clean?
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 30 2001 - 21:15:39 EST