Bertvan:
>>Do you believe children should be indoctrinated with your sincere
>>belief that all mutations are random?
Huxter:
>**** Why would you characterize my statement as a 'sincere belief'? What
'children' WOULD be >'indoctrinated' this? I was not aware that public
school biology goes into such detail. Certainly, when I >took biology in
high school, 'mutations' were not even mentioned.
Bertvan:
Huxter, I regard any of your statements as "sincere beliefs". In addition, I
accept your motives as you state them, and acknowledge that you are
intelligent and well educated. I extend the same courtesy to those,
including myself, who disagree with you. Are you saying that Neo Darwinism
is NOT defined in public school biology as "random mutation and natural
selection as the explanation of Nature's diversity"?
Bertvan:
>>How do you prove randomness? Maybe, like "god of the gaps",
>>randomness will have to retreat as more mechanisms behind mutations are
>>discovered .
Huxter
>***** Maybe. Maybe not. I suppose to appease folks like you we should just
go into class and say, "Gee >- we really don't know EVERYTHING about
EVERYTHING, so we might as well say nothing. Go home >now children, and ask
no questions, because since we do not know EVERYTHING about >EVERYTHING, any
answer I might give MIGHT be shown not exactly true at some point in the
future."
Bertvan:
"Maybe. Maybe not" would satisfy me. I liked the disclaimer some people
wanted inserted in biology text books, claiming something like, "No one was
there millions of years ago, and no one knows for sure what happened. We
hope you will study science, and maybe when you grow up you will work to
answer some of these questions." My main objection to Neo Darwinism is
insistence that it must be accepted, merely because no one has yet presented
anything better. Isn't it was your position? That Neo Darwinism, for which
there is evidence but no proof, shouldn't be questioned by people who see
evidence of design -- but no proof?
Bertvan:
>>. It seems obvious to most of us that few scientists
>>would expend much effort looking for something they don't believe exists.
Huxter:
>**** You mean like a supernatural entity responsible for everything from DNA
mutations to the creation >of the universe? I thought you were agnostic?
WHY should they 'look for something they don't believe >exists' when what
DOES exist can address most any question they might ask?
Bertvan:
Present scientific explanations "address most any question anyone might ask,
such as DNA mutations to the creation of the universe", to your satisfaction.
Other people are less easily satisfied.
Many Design theorists have stated repeatedly that while Design is
compatible with most religious beliefs, no religious belief is essential to
the paradigm. The essence of the viewpoint merely claims evidence exists
for regarding Nature as the result of a design, in which all of the parts
play an intelligible role, and that such complexity could not have arisen by
random, accidental processes, without plan, purpose or design. Religious
people may choose to believe their version of God is the designer, and
agnostics might refrain from speculating about the matter. Neo Darwinism
defenders seem to refuse to take the word of people who make this claim,
insisting someone is secretly trying to impose religious beliefs upon them.
The only theories which appear acceptable to such Darwin defenders, seem to
be those which specifically exclude everything except materialism. There are
people who do not practice any organized religion, but who are also not
materialists. Can you accept that?
Huxter:
>. Motives are, obviously, an important consideration.
> If one is oath-bound to proclaim the 'truth' of their convictions,
>does it not stand to reason that their claims just might be suspect?
Bertvan:
The motives should be suspect of anyone who has strong convictions about
anything except those matters about which you have strong convictions? You
must suspect the motives of a lot of people
Huxter:
>Do you consider it the 'stifling of dissent' to prevent astrology from
> being 'taught' in public schools? How about the teaching of Native
>American creation myths? Hindu? Why is it only the 'stifling of dissent'
>when the 'dissenters' happen to subscribe to a certain religious creed to
>one extent of another?
Bertvan:
If someone took to the courts to prevent anyone revealing to school children
that some people believe in little green leprechauns, I personally would be
inclined take another look at the evidence for little green leprechauns.
Are you saying that school children should be protected from the knowledge
that some people have religious beliefs? Should they be taught that all
religious beliefs are wrong? Is materialism the only appropriate belief to
be taught in school?
Do you insist than only materialism be taught in science classes? Would that
exclude all non materialists from becoming scientists?
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 22 2000 - 15:02:45 EST