Re: Are developmental biologists irreducibly dense?

Susan Brassfield (susan-brassfield@ou.edu)
Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:45:46 -0600

>Bertvan [to Chris]:
>Any theory which assumed the laws of nature were part of a complex design
>would not contradict the laws of chemistry of physics. Have you figured out
>a way to test whether the universe is an accident? Or do you claim you don't
>have to test it, because you've already put the burden of proof on everyone
>else?

The problem is, that the "accidental" nature of the universe is the bugbear
of religionists, not scientists. Religionists, such as yourself, need
someone to be in charge. If someone *is* in charge--a designer of some
kind--it is impossible to detect and therefore outside of science. Whether
someone is in charge or not doesn't effect whether or not gravity works or
physics works. If every scientist in the world--Hindu, Moslem, Buddhist,
Christian--swore an oath (on the *Christian* Bible of course!) that there
was, absolutely a designer, yess sireee, definitely, by golly a designer,
it would have NO effect on science or how it is conducted. The presence or
absence of a designer has no effect on science at all.

Susan

----------

"Life itself is the proper binge."
--Julia Child

http://www.telepath.com/susanb/