Bertvan:
Hi Susan, I'm on this list because I agree with the creationists about
"random mutation and natural selection", am grateful to them for pointing out
the weaknesses of the theory, and am shocked at the abuse they receive for
criticizing a so-called scientific theory. I am not religious, but I hate
intolerance. In this case, I feel intolerance is being practiced in the name
of science.
Bertvan:
>>There could be
>>scientific explanations which would not be incompatible with a belief that
>>the laws of nature are designed.
Susan:
>you have not shown how it *could* be possible. I think you think science is
>supposed to accept it because somebody suggested it.
Bertvan:
Nor have atheists shown design is *not* possible. And stating whether design
is possible or not possible is not within the realm of science.
Susan:
>in any of my posts have I denied the possibility of design? Haven't I even
>conceded design, at least hypothetically?
Bertvan:
Fair enough. And I don't want any religion imposed upon me, including
atheism in the form of "random mutation and natural selection". An
accidental universe--one without plan purpose or design-- is synonymous with
atheism.
Susan:
>of course! at bottom the whole thing is about forcing a particular religious
>mythology into government funded schools. I'm against it.
>freedom *of* religion, necessarily entails freedom *from* religion
Bertvan:
I feel the same way about forcing atheism upon government funded schools in
the form of "random mutation and natural selection." I am not against
science. I am against a science which insists upon an accidental universe,
one without plan purpose or design--a science which insists upon atheism. I
don't care if atheists believe in an accidental universe, I oppose such a
belief being imposed upon society as some "scientific truth".
Bertvan