Steve:
>>From ID's perspective, it is a major achievement that its critics are even
>>thinking about it! Of course as a committed atheistic evolutionist, Susan
>>has no alternative but to think that ID is "propaganda with no visible means
>>of support" (see below).
Susan:
>the idea's been around for 200 years!!! Creationists have hardly kept it a
>secret.
Bertvan:
Hi Susan, if you can refrain from declaring every questioning random mutation
and natural selection as an explanation of macro evolution is:
" trying to keep Genesis as
>>literally true, but to preserve the idea of original sin, the fall, and the
>>ultimate redemption from sin by the sacrifice of Jesus."
I will try to refrain from calling everyone who disagrees with me a liar. ID
has been around for 200 years, and so has materialism. Neither is likely to
be demonstrated as "scientific truth". Scientists should feel free to adopt
either paradigm under which to work.
Susan:
>in that case (That everything in nature is designed) how is anyone
>supposed to detect design? If EVERYTHING is
>designed, there is no way to detect it. There's no way to compare something
>designed to something not designed. I think this clearly exposes the
>entirely religious underpinnings of design. You must *believe* that
>everything is designed because there's no way to prove it. That's fine. I
>have no problem with religious beliefs as long as they are not passed off
>as science. Or as long as no one attempts to substitute these religious
>beliefs for science in public schools.
Bertvan:
Some of us object to the religious philosophy of materialism being passed off
as science in the public schools. Science should be an attempt to describe
reality. Whether reality consists of nothing but materialism -- or whether
reality includes design are two different descriptions. I would not wish to
exclude either from the science classroom.
Susan:
>ok. In that case why does Darwinian evolution make them so uncomfortable?
>Wouldn't it be perfectly obvious that God was in charge of evolution? That
>an investigation of evolution, for a Christian, would be an investigation
>of God's handiwork?
Bertvan:
Some sort of common descent was acknowledge before Darwin wrote a word.
Darwin's contribution was "random mutation and natural selection as an
explanation of macro evolution". This is what Steve and most other critics
of Darwinism question. Yet, Darwin defenders seem to accuse anyone
questioning this one mechanism of the following:
Susan:
>the whole creationist agenda is to preserve the absolute fact of the
>Genesis creation. Creationists have, indeed, (some of them anyway--this
>certainly doesn't include Gish or Hovind) been forced to change tactics as
>facts became more and more undeniable. That's why ID in its modern version
>is so attractive.
>It's tremendously more vague than "Creation science" which actually made
>some scientific claims that could be tested (and were then immediatly
>proved false). If *everything* is designed, then ID can't be tested for and
>therefore can't be disproved. It must simply be believed. You can claim it
>is science and complain that evolutionary biologists deliberately ignore
>it--as Johnson does.
and
>you haven't talked to my mother recently!!! it's all exactly scientific
>history! :-) at least for most creationists such as the people trying to
>get disclaimers in science text books, get evolutionary evidence suppressed
>in public schools, etc. They don't give a flying flip about philosophical
>underpinnings of science. They want Genesis (and no other creation myth, of
>course) taught as science in public schools. And if some claptrap about
>"Intelligent Design" gets that goal accomplished, great.
Bertvan:
I don't accuse those who believe Darwinism is the explanation of macro
evolution of being insincere or having some secret agenda. I believe they
are sincere about their philosophy of materialism and honestly believe their
theory to be valid. I see no reason why either their theory or their
philosophy should be shielded from criticism.
Susan:
>I tend to lump all Christians who fight evolution tooth and nail in spite
>of the huge amount of evidence supporting it under the general term
>"creationist." You guys can decide amoung yourselves what kind of
>creationist you are.
Bertvan;
I'll probably stop criticizing Darwinism "tooth and nail" when those who
dissent are treated with respect.
Susan:
>you are assuming that evolution has something to do with religion. It
>doesn't. "Materialistic-naturalism" is required for science. There's no way
>to conduct science without that assumption. Or, at least, neither you nor
>Johnson has come up with any viable suggestions as to how one would go
>about conducting science without that assumption.
Bertvan:
I respectfully disagree. An assumption of "materialistic-naturalism" is not
required. One can just as easily do science under an assumption of design.
Science is the process of observation and accurate measurements. Those who
assume design are, in my estimation, more likely to decipher the details of
the design than those who insist no design can possibly exist
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 02 2000 - 14:35:24 EDT