I deplore this battle between creationists and evolutionists. There could be
scientific explanations which would not be incompatible with a belief that
the laws of nature are designed. Not necessarily confirming design--but
merely not denying the POSSIBILITY of design. Such explanations would
satisfy many so-called creationists. Actually, I believe science will
eventually realize they cannot legitimately make any statement about the
existence or non existence of design, and will come up with something which
does not deny anyone's philosophy. (It won't be "random mutation and natural
selection", which specifically denies any possibility of design.)
You say biologists are open minded and flexible, and if other mechanisms of
evolution other than "random mutation and natural selection" are found, they
will be accepted by biologists. True, but they were not found until someone
started looking for them. As long as the orthodoxy insisted that the process
was random, without plan, meaning or direction, no one was looking for such
things as directed mutations. (How many times did I hear "Lamarck has been
refuted"!!!!) Now, finally, some microbiologists are looking for directed
mutations and finding them.
This debate which is occurring on the internet is not much about science,
but mostly about religion. Atheists against any type of religion.
Certainly, those most indignant about the possible existence of any type of
design usually claim to be atheists. Personally, I would never mock anyone's
religion, including that of atheists. I am an agnostic, but I do confess most
atheists I've met on the internet seem unpleasant, arrogant and sarcastic.
I have one question for you:
Would you like to reach some accommodation with "creationists" or do you
enjoy doing battle with them too much to give it up?
Bertvan