>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.
since "micro" evolution, mutation and selection have all been observed,
they are skeptical for reasons that don't have to do with science. In my
experience it is *exactly* descent with modification and change through
time that they object to. God was supposed to have created everything
perfect and complete all at once with no later modification.
>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?
you snipped the part where I said you were influenced by the *propaganda*
of biblical literalists. I never stated that *you* personally were a
biblical literalist. I *wish* you would argue against what I actually say
and not against what you think I'm saying (especially if you are going to
cut out what I actually said).
>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.
doubt it! All they have to ask is "who's the designer" and we are right
back to religion, not science. You *know* Johnson, Behe, Stephen Jones, et
al. don't think it was the little green guys. They think it is a 3000 year
old middle eastern battle god who did the designing.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 22 2000 - 12:44:18 EST