Hello Bertvan, you wrote:
>Hi Richard, you wrote:
>>I don't reject their work because of their religious beliefs, ( Behe and
>Dembski)
>>I reject it because it's wrong. However it's clear to me that the reason
>>such deeply flawed theories are proposed by highly educated people
>> who should no better, and receive so much support, is because of
> >their religious significance.
>
>Bertvan:
>Remember what a humble fellow you were a little over a week ago?
Oh, I was never humble. ;-)
>You have
>progressed in that short time. Then, you hadn't heard an explanation of a
>progressive creationist position. Now, you understand such explanations so
>well you can state categorically they are wrong!
I was referring to Behe's and Dembski's ID theories, for which they're well
known. Do they have theories on progressive creationism too?
>A week ago you couldn't
>rule out the possibility you might change your mind about God. Today, you
>are convinced the only reason Behe and Dembski try to impose their
scientific
>ideas upon the public is for some secret agenda of imposing God upon
society
>- a God about which you are now certain you are not going to change your
>mind.
Where do I say or imply that I'm certain I won't change my mind on the
existence of God? I don't.
And I never said that the agenda of Behe and Dembski was secret. The CRSC,
of which they are fellows, is pretty clear about its agenda to overthrow the
current system of science.
> A week ago, you accepted theories of evolution mainly because you
>trusted the experts. This week you are confident in deciding which experts
>are wrong. (Behe and Dembski do have degrees in their respective fields.)
There is no contradiction there. I can see errors in the ID theories of Behe
and Dembski, and the fact that these theories have not been accepted by
mainstream science increases my confidence that I'm right.
>A
>week ago you found the evidence for evolution "persuasive". This week you
>know it to be unquestionable "fact".
I wish you'd read what I say more carefully. I never said evolution was
unquestionable. I never actually said evolution was a fact; however, I will
say now that, as far as I'm concerned, the occurrence of evolution has been
established sufficiently well for this to be considered a scientific fact.
>and anyone such as Behe and Dembski who
>challenge aspects of evolution are not only WRONG, but have ulterior
motives
>in doing so.
I don't say that anyone who challenges any aspect of evolution is wrong. But
I do say that the ID theories of Behe and Dembski are wrong, and that they
have religious motives for pushing these theories. I wouldn't use the word
"ulterior" as I think that implies deliberate deception.
>So you can remember on how far you've come in a week, I include
>excerpts from a former post.
>
>Richard:
>>At one time I called myself an agnostic, when I hadn't made up my mind
>>on the issue. Now I've made up my mind that there is no God, but I don't
>>totally rule out the possibility of changing my mind in the future!
>
> >First of all, my main reason for accepting the theory of evolution is
>>that it has the overwhelming support of the scientific community,
>>particularly those scientists working in relevant fields such as biology
and
>>paleontology.
>
>>I imagine some readers may dismiss this as an appeal to authority. But
>>the fact is few of us have the time, inclination and ability to study all
>>the evidence for ourselves, and so we have to place a certain amount of
>>trust in the experts, not individually, since they are fallible human
beings,
> >but as a community.
>
>>I can at least say of the theory of evolution that I broadly understand
>>it, find it intuitively reasonable, have read a moderate amount about the
>>evidence for it, and find the evidence very persuasive.
>
>>The only OEC position that I have any familiarity with is that of Hugh
>>Ross, and I do consider that to be pseudoscience. I haven't yet come
across
>an
>>explanation of the progressive creationist position, so I won't comment
>>on that.
So where is the contradiction between my position then and my position now?
>Bertvan:
>I have to confess, Richard, that I don't enjoy discussions with people to
>question my motives.
Sorry, but I think if you engage in a controversial debate such as this you
should be prepared to have your motives questioned. I have no problem with
anyone questioning my motives. That's why I announced my religious (or
rather non-religious) position when I introduced myself to the list.
>If you question Behe's and Dembski's motives, you must
>surely question mine.
Yes, I always question people's motives. I like to know *why* people do and
say the things they do.
>Good luck. I hope you succeed in evading all that
>religion Behe and Dembski are trying to impose upon you.
I hope so too.
Richard Wein (Tich)
See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 17 2000 - 07:03:09 EST