Bertvan:
>>Huxter, I regard any of your statements as "sincere beliefs".
Huxter:
>@@@@ Why is that? If I state a fact, is that a 'sincere belief' too?
Bertvan:
We each have our own definition of what is fact and what is belief. Or do
you insist that anything you regard as fact should never be questioned?
Have you ever been wrong? (Just curious. I've been wrong many times.
Actually, I can remember when I believed Darwinism was the most important
scientific development of our time.)
Huxter
>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:
If the mutations were not random, Natural Selection might play a minor part
in the process. The creation of biological novelty might be accomplished by
the mutations. Nevertheless, I'll restate: Are you saying that children
should be indoctrinated with your sincere belief that nature's diversity is
created by random mutation and natural selection? As is a fact? Or as
your sincere belief?
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:
It seems to me the Darwinists are the ones saying "now children, don't ask
questions. It was random mutation and natural selection-and that is a fact!
And remember, children, we don't question anything Huxter considers a fact!"
Huxter:
>@@@@ 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."
Bertvan:
Many religious people already acknowledge that, Dexter. I think you are
fighting a caricature of religion.
Why do you get so worked up over other people's religious beliefs? Is anyone
trying to force you to accept their religious beliefs as fact? I disagree
with most people on this list about religion, but I've found them to be quite
respectful of my disagreement. But then I respect their beliefs (which can
be neither proved nor disproved.)
Huxter:
>@@@@ 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.
Bertvan:
I'm confident scientists who pursue design will produce results. For
example, discovering purpose behind biological systems, rather than
dismissing them as "junk DNA" or a collection of random accumulations of
matter. And I doubt anyone has any desire to convince you, or any other
materialist, of anything. Materialists should be free to work under their
premise that nature is the result of random processes, devoid of meaning,
plan or purpose, and non-materialists should work under their assumptions.
Would you object to that?
Bertvan:
>> Many Design theorists have stated repeatedly that while Design is
>>compatible with most religious beliefs, no religious belief is essential
to
>>the paradigm.
Huxter
>@@@@ Sure they state that.... But that is a smokescreen. Look at their
'less
>guarded' writings, and their motivations are clear.
Bertvan:
Does being an atheist cause you to have ulterior motives? . Do you accuse
me of only pretending to be an agnostic and having ulterior motives? It's
pretty hard to carry on a rational discussion with someone who continually
accuses people of not meaning what they say. Many people (not all) who
believe in design are also religious. Some even quote the bible as
scientific evidence. However I have never heard Johnson, Denton, Dembski ,
and many others including Steven or Mike Gene use religious belief as a
scientific argument. I can personally testify that it is possible to consider
Nature the result of design without speculating about any designer. Just as
I can consider the possibility of a Big Bang without speculating about its
cause
Huxter:
>@@@ 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?
Bertvan:
I don't think anyone is asking you to "take the word" of anyone about
anything. Until recently, any scientist who questioned "random mutation and
natural selection as an explanation for macro evolution", was attacked by his
peers as an "unscientific creationist". Hopefully, in the future, as design
is being openly discussed, both materialist and non materialist scientists
will feel free to pursue their own research.
Huxter
>@@@@ 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.
Bertvan:
The problem is, Huxter, most scientists who support design do not quote the
bible, and some non materialist scientists do care about science. Whether
or not you accept those ignorant engineers or mathematicians might turn out
to be irrelevant. The question of materialism versus non materialism will
continue to be debated. Personally, I would not wish either side to be
silenced.
Huxter:
>@@@@ 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:
I don't know about the talking donkeys, but some of your fellow scientists
might object to science being defined as pure materialism. I'd love to hear
a sampling of the views of individual scientists. In any case, under such a
definition, science would have to relinquish its claim to be searching for
accurate descriptions of reality. Most people regard reality as more than
pure materialism.
Huxter
>@@@@ 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.
Bertvan:
You had me fooled, Huxter. I would have thought you were "bound to defend"
materialism. (or at least atheism.)
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 01 2000 - 10:34:50 EST