Re: Dennett's bad word and Johnson's question

From: Bertvan@aol.com
Date: Tue Mar 21 2000 - 22:47:59 EST

  • Next message: MikeBGene@aol.com: "Re: Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame, by William Dembski"

    Susan:
    >es. Except in the case of evolutionary biology whether it truely is random
    >r not really doesn't make a difference to evolution (descent with
    >odification, change in a gene pool over time). Everyone is perfectly free
    >o have an opinion about whether or not the gods make it rain. Everyone is
    >not* perfectly free to have just any old opinion about whether or not it
    >ains sometimes. If you say "in my opinion it never rains" and the opinion
    >f everyone else on the earth is that it sometimes rains, at *best* you are
    >oing to be thought a nut. It's not really *necessary*, I suppose, that
    >ne's personal reality be verifiable with the rest of the world, but *I*
    >ould rather mine be, and science isn't doesn't work any other way.

    Bertvan:
    "Dscent with modification, change in a gene pool over time" is not what most
    critics of Darwinism challenge. Most are skeptical that micro evolution can
    be explained by random mutation and natural selection.

    Susan:
    >I think you are being untruthful when you say you don't want to persuade
    >others to your viewpoint. I think if that were actually true you would never
    >have subscribed to this list. I also don't really trust your agnosticism.
    >You want *somebody* to be in control of "it all." *Who* pray tell? White
    >Buffalo Calf Woman? the little green guys from outer space?

    Bertvan:
    If anyone should happen to agree with me I'd be delighted. Mainly I'm
    interested in convincing the public that everyone who criticizes Darwinism
    (random mutation and natural selection as an explanation of macro evolution)
    is not necessarily a religious zealot. I don't want anyone to control ideas,
    including ideas that are presented to children. You insist I'm a biblical
    literalist. How can I be a biblical literalist if I never even read the
    bible?

    Susan:
    >I think Intelligent Design is religious dogma. It's the old creationism in a
    >new sheep's clothing.

    Bertvan:
    I disagree. If the public hears enough arguments such as yours more of them
    might stray from the Darwiist party line.

    Bertvan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 22:48:38 EST