I don't believe a rational discussion can be carried on with anyone who calls
people with whom they disagree liars. None of the "Darwinists" on this board
seem to disavow the tactic, so my remarks are directed to those lurkers who
might not be certain of the details of their philosophy.
My first objection to Neo Darwinism was that it made unwarranted assumptions
and was bad science. I soon discovered that the unwarranted assumptions were
made to force the few known facts into a purely mechanistic view of nature,
and the majority of passionate defenders of the theory are rigid materialists.
I don't believe materialists are stupid, I believe they are sincere and don't
intentionally lie. When I said there was nothing wrong with someone
promoting a philosophy of materialism, Susan's answer was:
>you don't believe that for a moment, why are you saying it?
Sorry, Susan, I do believe it. There is room for many diverse beliefs and
philosophies in this world. However, I do object to materialism being imposed
upon society as proven scientific fact.
Susan said:
>"but so far, as far as I know ID "theory" has presented no positive evidence
>at all that could not be more easily accounted for by evolution. There's no
>scientific method involved in it, and no way I can see that it could be.
>There is only belief, which is fine, as long as we don't pretend that it is
>more than than."
So far I know, Neo Darwinism has presented no positive evidence that could
not be more easily by design. "Random mutation and natural selection as an
explanation of macro evolution" as a belief is fine, as long as we don't
pretend that is more that that.
Most materialists believe life is a machine made out of meat powered by a
computer-like mechanism called a brain, and it can completely explained by
known laws of physics. (If I am wrong I invite some of you materialists to
correct me.) Neo Darwinists present evidence that evolution might have
happened by random processes, without purpose, plan or design. I see (to me,
obvious) evidence of purpose, plan and design. I have no objection to anyone
interpreting the evidence as they see it, so long as they keep it out of
science classrooms. No one knows whether or not design is a part of nature.
Neither it's existence nor it's nonexistence is a scientific fact.
Susan seemed to feel that Johathan Wells' reported interested in the Moslem
religion negated anything he said. I hadn't realized Unitarians were so
intolerant.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan