>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.
"it's a religion!" only fools the people who want to be fooled. It didn't
fool the Supreme Court. It doesn't fool anybody who knows anything about
how science works.
>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.
So astrology should be taught in astronomy class? Feng Shui should be
taught in geology class? Those are supernatural-immaterial sciences. I'm
sure they describe reality too.
Susan:
> . . . 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.
And the agenda of creationists is hardly a secret! No need to shield
evolution from criticism--if the criticism is actually of the actual
science, which most creationist criticisms are not. Or if the criticisms
are valid, which most creationist criticisms are not. Evolution has
undergone over 130 years of rigorous criticism and investigation and has
emerged virtually intact. Evolution is quite used to 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.
so it's not the evidence at hand, but the bad manners of the proponents
that turned you against Darwinism. Now that makes sense. Evolution (and all
of science) expects critique. Stephen would have no quotes to mine if it
never recieved any criticism. ID is not immune from critique either,
however. And criticising ID is not the same thing as "wanting to wipe it
out."
>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
again, I ask: exactly how would you conduct science with the assumption of
design? What would such a science look like? What does
immaterialistic-supernatural science look like?
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 May 03 2000 - 17:38:01 EDT