Some of Bertvan's posts seem off-point for the topics under discussion. The
issue I've been trying to get ID folks to consider is the *fundamental*
non-scientific nature of their theory. But, the issue Bertvan is talking
about here, while a worthy topic, is not relevant to the views I was
presenting. It's not, fundamentally, about what is taught in the schools, or
whether someone is imposing their views on others.
(In case anyone wonders, I'm completely opposed to public schooling anyway,
precisely because it's not government's business to be imposing its (or some
"majoritie's") views on other people. That's why we have seperation of
church and state, and that's why, ultimately, we must have seperation of
school and state. Getting government mixed up in schooling *or* religion, or
vice versa, is a bad thing. In fact, it's essentially the *same* thing; an
attempt at mind-control ("justified," of course by good intentions, despite
the horrendous harm it does -- I guess the people who support government
schooling but who oppose government religion believe that those who support
government religion are *not* just as well-intentioned as they are -- or
else they just only point their hypocrisy detectors toward others).
So far, *all* responses to my "Where's the science?" posts have drawn
essentially irrelevant and/or evasive posts (such as Stephen's, in which
Behe's *alleged* elimination of *one* category of possible evolutionary
paths to certain structures is taken as proof that *none* of the *many*
paths available on the basis of evolutionary theory is possible or likely.
This is pseudo-science at its worst.)
So, I ask again: Where's the *Science*?
--Chris
> Hi Chris,
>
> For me, this evolution debate is reminiscent of McCarthyism. Your
sincerity
> and passionate belief in what you claim to defend is obvious. As were
those
> people who believed Communism was the magic answer to the world's
problems,
> as well as those who believed it was a powerful, sinister menace hiding
under
> every bed. I didn't share either belief, but I deplored the tactics of
> those who tried to stifle debate by threat and intimidation. I would
> probably disagree on details with many of the people who promote the
concept
> of design. However unless, or until, we have a better idea of what
really
> happened, each is entitled to their own speculations. As long as the
Kansas
> school board is denounced as anti intellectual bigots, when they did
nothing
> more than refuse to indoctrinate children with the belief that random
> mutation and natural selection were the universally acknowledged mechanism
of
> macro evolution, I'll be as passionate as you about this debate.
Originally
> my skepticism concerned the scientific facts of Darwinism. I'll admit
my
> passion has been the result of tactics used to defend the theory.
>
> You can not define science as materialism, and also insist that everyone
> accept it as absolute truth, never to be questioned. You might believe
> passionately in your philosophy, but you have no right to impose it on
> anyone. You are certainly free to list the evidence you see for nature
being
> the result of accidental processes, without plan or purpose. I've said
> before, you do a good job of that. Non materialists should also be free
to
> describe the evidence they see for plan, purpose or design. I happen to
find
> their arguments more compelling, reasoned, rational and unemotional. If
you
> define science is materialism, limited to investigation of measurable
> physical phenomena, people are justified in protesting it cannot answer
the
> big questions such as origins, design and purpose. Science often can't
be
> precise in describing historical events such as evolution. But I'm not
even
> sure you are entitled to define science for everyone. Maybe scientific
truth
> and philosophical truth can not be separated. You claim you don't want
> religion taught in science classes. I don't want any specific philosophy
> taught there as scientific truth.
>
> Bertvan
>