In a message dated 2/22/00 3:03:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, Bertvan@aol.com
writes:
<<
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".
@@@@ Why is that? If I state a fact, is that a 'sincere belief' too?
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"?
@@@@@ It may be - I haven't been in public school in 15 years. However, that
is not what you wrote, now is it? Allow me to quote from just a few lines
above: "Do you believe children should be indoctrinated with your sincere
belief that all mutations are random?" I see no mention at all of selection
in there anywhere. Awfully selective of you...
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."
@@@@ I would like to see a disclaimer put in all religious texts: "The
following are the explanations of natural events as depicted by technically
unsophisticated ancient peoples. The following tales are meant as 'moral
stories', and have no basis in fact."
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?
@@@@ Then you do not understand WHY such a sentiment is useful. Evidence but
no proof - what constitutes proof? Is there proof of a supernatural entity?
Is there proof of a grand designer? There isn't even proof of 'irreducibly
complex' biological entities, much less 'intelligent design' of those
entities. You do understand the difference between evidence and proof, doyou
not?
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.
@@@@ Then perhaps they should produce some RESULTS based on EVIDENCE that
would act to convince their fellow scientists of the validity of their
beliefs. Mathematical equations based on unrealistic assumptions and
philosophical constructs are not 'proof' of anything.
Many Design theorists have stated repeatedly that while Design is
compatible with most religious beliefs, no religious belief is essential to
the paradigm.
@@@@ Sure they state that.... But that is a smokescreen. Look at their 'less
guarded' writings, and their motivations are clear.
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.
@@@ And that 'belief' is not based on scientific evidence - it is based on a
lack or a perceived lack thereof, and a heaping helping of the 'awe' factor.
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.
@@@ Why should scientists 'take the word' of someone or some group that
offers NO EVIDENCE, will not submit their 'disproofs' for peer review, and do
indeed (haven't you read the 'mission statements' of these groups? the
'biographies' of some of these ID authors?) want to inflict their religious
views on others? Should scientists have 'taken Darwin's word' on the matter?
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?
@@@@ I can accept that there are lots of people that are more secure in their
own beliefs - whatever they might be - than in what is supportable with
evidence. I can accept the words of the creationist that says 'I don't care
about science - I believe the bible is true.' I cannot accept the
creationist that says "I believe the bible is true and here is some 'science'
(consisting almost exclusively of out of date and/or out of context quotes)
disproving evolution.' I can accept some engineers and mathematicians
ignorance-based forays into genetics and biology; I cannot accept their
continued insistence that they are 'right' despite evidence that they are not.
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
@@@@ I suspect the motives of those that are oath-bound to declare the
'truth' of their beliefs at all costs. I have never taken an 'oath' of any
sort, so I am not bound to 'defend my beliefs.' Apples and oranges.
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.
@@@@ Just because some people 'believe in' something, you think it has
validity? How credulous!
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?
@@@@ No, I am saying that public schools should not be little right-wing
Christian indosctination centers. Do you really think that any other
religion gets a fair shake in public schools? When the politicians were
carrying on about 'prayer in school' - do you really think they meant Muslim
prayer? Materialism, whatever its philosophical baggage might be, is not a
religion - there is no figurehead(s), no rituals, etc.
Do you insist than only materialism be taught in science classes? Would
that
exclude all non materialists from becoming scientists?
@@@@ Only materialism should be taught in science class because there is
only evidence for materialistic processes in nature. Imagine that! I must
be a bigot, because I don't think elves and fairies and talking donkeys and
parting seas should be 'taught' in science class....
Bertvan
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 17:26:45 EST