Steve C:
>And they will continue to defend random mutation and natural selection
>until a better mechanistic paradigm comes along. ID doesn't provide a
>mechanistic explanation and does not represent such a paradigm shift. ID
>and evolution really deal with different matters and that is why ID hasn't
>been readily embraced by science. It simply does not explain how different
>species came about. It only says that it was purposful.
Hi Steve,
I don't find much with which to disagree in your post. I see most of your
points. I know no reason for science to embrace ID. I am offended by
efforts, a la Eugene Scott, to "stamp it out". As a non- materialist, I am
comfortable with the belief that much of the universe will remain
unexplainable. I agree that science may answer few, if any, "why"
questions. On the other hand, science has no authority to declare that
teleology does not exist. An evolutionary mechanism which included the
POSSIBILITY of teleology, would look very different from "random mutation and
natural selection".
I do have some questions:
1. Why should scientists "defend" random mutation and natural selection until
a better mechanistic paradigm comes along? In fact, how many scientists you
know do so? How many scientists admit it appears inadequate, and are
searching for better explanations? You don't insist upon a mechanistic
explanation of the cause of the Big Bang, do you? So far you aren't
"defending" a mechanistic explanation of consciousness. (I understand some
have been proposed.) Sociobiologists have suggested a mechanistic
explanation of "altruism", but I don't see science making a concerted effort
to "defend" the idea.
2. Do you consider Gaia a mechanistic explanation? Phenomena that might be
considered random in isolation appear purposeful considered by the Gaia
concept? In this case wouldn't "purpose" be an essential part of the
explanation? Do you consider such concepts outside science?
>Steve C:
>Trying to prove Darwinism is an examination of realilty. The attempt may
>be successful or not, but it represents an attempt of someone to explain
>reality. The fact that individuals may have prejudices that color what
>they consider to be reality is not relevant, because you obviously have a
>similar prejudice. You are basically claiming that the study of the
>reality that you favor is science while the study of reality that you don't
>favor is not science.
Bertvan:
I consider investigation of everyone's reality science. I do not claim that
materialism not science -- or even "lesser" science. I have no desire to
convert materialists. I admit my prejudices. I wish materialists felt the
same about theirs.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 12 2000 - 16:30:10 EDT