Susan wrote:
>:-) I was on a list once where I was constantly being called a
>"naturalist." I *really* enjoyed that, though I quickly realized they meant
>it disparagingly. Who is allowed to pick and choose their evidence? What
>is, is. If something doesn't fit, then your ideas have to change--if you
>are a scientist. Not a single word, sentence, or comma may be added or
>subtracted from the bible. It is utterly static. Science (and materialism,
>I guess) is always in flux.
Bertvan:
I thought materialism had a pretty specific definition.--That nothing exists
except matter and energy, and everything is humanly understandable in those
terms. That the universe is the result of a series of accidents-- without
plan, meaning or purpose. What is your definition?
Susan:
>what, exactly *is* their evidence? and what is the criteria for deciding
>something is designed? So far the only answer I've ever been able to get is
>"it looks designed to *me*" or "well, I don't understand how it could
>happen, so it must be designed." (Mr. Tyler has a version of that one in
>his article on bacteria mutations.) That's really not enough for me.
Bertvan:
The universe looks too complex to me to be the result of a series of random
accidents. I (as a non-materialist) doubt humans will ever understand
everything, and the origin of the design is one of the things I'm not
interested in speculating about. That doesn't mean I'm not fascinated by
science's successes in learning details of the design. Creationists claim,
"Darwinists don't know how evolution happened, so they say it must have been
an accident, because that is the best materialist explanation they can think
of." Both the Darwinists and the creationists cite ideas which seem
incredible to them--"design" by the Darwinists, and "random accidents" by the
creationists.
Susan:
>philosophy is one thing and scientific truth is quite another. No
>scientific "truth" should be presented without a great deal of
>substantiating evidence. Evidence is the key in the truth-value of any
>scientific theory. Otherwise, why bother? Science is a method for getting
>at the truth.
Bertvan:
Because a scientist says something and cites what he considers good evidence
for it does not ensure it is some "eternal, absolute truth." When
creationists offer their evidence, Darwinists sometimes claim it can't be
legitimate evidence because it is offered by creationists--not scientists.
If Darwinists' evidence is superior to that of creationists, it will prevail.
There is no need to try to silence creationists. Do you think only
scientists are interested in the truth? Don't you believe honest differences
of opinion can exist? Would you forbid anyone to question anything a
scientist says about evolution? (Sometimes different scientists even say
different things.) Would you specifically forbid religious people from
expressing opinions about science?
Susan:
>natural selection has been observed to occur, but that doesn't matter
>because evolution is a rigid preconception?
Bertvan:
No, but some people's materialism can be rigid, in my opinion. Natural
Selection has been observed, but it has not been proven to be the cause of
the major changes in organisms. Actually, Susan, I consider myself on the
side of science, but I don't think science is well served by the bitterness
of the current debate.
Bertvan