>> physical intelligence, etc.,
billwald:
>Be serious. <G> This phrase was invented by do-gooders for the purpose of
>elevating the academic status of a specific group of people who
>consistantly score a standard deviation below the rest of the human race
>on every written test ever devised.
Bertvan:
I understand your criticism, but was only trying to point out there is no
universally accepted, scientific definition of intelligence.
Bertvan:
>>I don't have to "condone suffering", to recognize it as an
>>essential piece of reality. Without evil, what would be the
>>point of making moral choices? Indeed, no one would have
>> a choice, and I regard a life without choices intolerable.
>>Without suffering, what would be meaning of joy? Without
>>challenge and the possibility of failure, what would be the
>> satisfaction of achievement? Without death, would life have value?
Billwald:
>This is basically a religious statement. Suffering is basically the
>stimulation of a particular set of nerves and joy is the stimulation of a
>different set. Suffering does not have a moral component unless a human
>is intentionally doing the stimulating.
>There isn't any experiment or data which demonstrates the existance of
>the concept of free will.
>Life only has value in a religious context. (economically and socially,
>some humans have more value as compost than as living entities)
Bertvan:
Yes, mine is a religious statement, but so is yours. (Surely you don't
pretend this controversy is not about religion!) Whether suffering and joy
are nothing more than mechanical stimulation of a set of nerves can neither
be proved nor disproved scientifically. The existence of free will can
neither be proved nor disproved scientifically. Both are religious points
of view. Remember, most opponents of Darwinism question "random mutation and
natural selection" as an explanation of macro evolution. Many of them
acknowledge the probability of some form of common descent. Much of this
controversy would disappear with a public acknowledgement that the mechanism
of macro evolution is unknown. It may be a mechanical, purposeless process
without plan, meaning or design -- or it may not. It is my impression that
the most passionate defenders of RM&NS are atheists. I would defend the
right of anyone to their religious beliefs, including atheism. I would
object to having a religious theory (atheism, materialism -- whatever you
call it) imposed upon society as a scientific truth. "Evolution" without
Darwinism (random mutation and natural selection) would probably not be
controversial.
It is true that many ID'ers believe God intervened occasionally in the laws
of nature. Most proponents of ID accept the existence of "laws of nature".
Whether or not exceptions have occurred is a trivial argument, and need not
alter our scientific understanding of nature. I argue that the universe is
the result of a rational plan or deign. We could both argue that until we
were blue in the face, but the truth is, I have no desire to interfere in
your religious beliefs. I haven't seen evidence of "creationists" proposing
specific "interventions in the laws of nature" as scientific fact. On the
other hand, Darwinists seem to insist that "random mutation and natural
selection" is the scientific explanation of macro evolution. I am convinced
that if the controversy were clearly defined, Darwinists would loose much of
the coercive power they now enjoy among the public.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 27 2000 - 15:19:52 EDT