Ted:
> 1. independent evidence of ID capable of genetic engineering
>2. anything that casts doubt on RM & NS capability of doing the
> job
>These are things that would cause me to suspect design. Now
>you might characterize these things as far closer to proof
>than suspicion but I wouldn't; RM & NS is such a powerful and
>persuasive explanation to begin with, it requires powerful and
>persuasive explanations to overturn it.
Bertvan:
Hi Ted:
Where you see RM&NS such a powerful and persuasive explanation, it requires
powerful and persuasive explanations to overturn it. Many of us see RM&NS as
such an inadequate explanation, we would carefully examine ANY other
explanation. The evidence for and against RM&NS is available to all of us,
and how we evaluate it is a personal judgment. You seem to be the most open
minded defender of RM&NS I've encountered, but I wouldn't expect you to
change your mind about the merits of ID -- just as I am unlikely to suddenly
see RM&Ns as a "powerful explanation". Do you think there is room in science
for more than one view on the subject-without either side attacking the
other's motives or intelligence? Do you think it possible ID scientists and
RM&NS scientists might coexist? Would you consider it legitimate for the
public (including school children) to be aware of such a difference of
opinion among scientists --without anyone declaring that those with
minority views weren't "real" scientists? I'm almost embarrassed to ask you
these questions, for I've respected your arguments, but I've found most RM&NS
defenders intolerant of any form of dissent.
Mike Gene said: And of
> > course trivial observed examples of RM&NS become inflated to
>> explain everything, as there is no solid alternative. From this
>> perspective, one doesn't need evidence that RM&NS evolved some
>> feature because the mere existence of RM&NS is sufficient.
Ted:
> Sufficient, at least, without an alternate explanation. It's
>just like suggesting that erosion can explain the Grand Canyon.
>We know that erosion works on our small observable scale so we
>assume in can also do a much larger job over a much larger
>interval of time. However, that explanation would quickly fall
>out of favor if good evidence for a different mechanism were
>found, or if evidence for aliens who had good reason to do such
>things was discovered.
Bertvan:
The assumption is justified in the case of erosion because we can observe
small changes turning into large scale effects. We not only don't observe
the gradual creation of new organs and complex systems by gradual, random
mutations and natural selection -- some of us have trouble even imagining
the steps involved in such a process. Because one assumption has proved to
be justified doesn't automatically justify all assumptions. Since part of
your attachment to RM&NS is merely lack of alternative explanations, I should
think you would applaud anyone searching for other options, such as evidence
for non-random, environmental influences upon mutation. Yet most RM&NS
defenders appear not only uninterested in such research; they seem to have an
emotional aversion such a possibility. If mutations were not random, there
would be no need for Natural Selection to "create" anything. Surely
Darwinist aversion to purposeful mutations can't merely be emotional
attachment to the idea of Natural Selection!!
> Ted :
>Let's also not forget to look at the other side of the
> coin. If similarity and complexity suggests intelligence,
>then the sheer coldness and lack of any moral decency whatsoever
>in nature suggests the absence of intelligence (if we associate
>higher intelligence with higher morality). Frankly, I can't
>conceive of an intelligence so great that it could manipulate
>genes but so morally-flawed that it would permit the unimaginable
>scale of pain and suffering in life's history. We must suppose
>an intelligence that is far more frightening then no intelligence
>at all; an intelligence that would permit any intelligent race
>to be wiped out to see what organism might next fill its niche.
>Perhaps it is far more comforting to imagine that nature alone
>gave rise to life than to imagine an advanced intelligence
>without a trace of human decency!
Bertvan:
Here I think we have the heart of the disagreement. You are defining
"intelligence" as human intelligence. Certainly not canine intelligence,
feline intelligence, nor bacterial intelligence, but even most religious
people regard the intelligence in nature as something more than " human
intelligence". It is true that many religious people paint their God in
pretty human terms, but agnostics can consider nature the result of an
intelligent, rational design without even speculating about the nature of any
designer. We do not have to understand any ultimate purposes to believe
teleology might be a part of nature.
In addition, you seem to believe intelligence should include moral judgments
such as "human decency". This belief that nature is immoral seems to be
behind some people's passionate denial of teleology as a possible part of
nature. According to whose standards might nature be immoral? A century or
so ago "human decency" included the institution of slavery. Has
twenty-first-century, Western "human decency" reached some objective plateau?
Are you convinced the only possible "intelligent" purpose of nature must be
bliss? (absence of pain and conflict) Human bliss? Animal bliss"? How
could we even define bliss in the absence of suffering? RM&NS is an
explanation of nature devoid of teleology. If some people, in their
disappointment that nature doesn't "show a trace of human decency" have
decided teleology does not exist, fine. That decision should not be imposed
anyone as "scientific truth".
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 15 2000 - 11:31:52 EDT