>Richard:
>Michael Ruse claims that "Evolution is a religion." Not just that it's
>sometimes been used as a religion. Not just that some people use it to
>support their religion. But that it *is* a religion. This is either an
>absurd exaggeration or a very sloppy use of language. It is inconsistent
>with Ruse's own statement, later in the article, that evolution is "good,
>tough, forward-looking science". Ruse is tarring the whole of the science of
>evolution with a religious brush just because *some* people, *some* of the
>time, use it as a religion.
>And when Ruse complains about the use of religious-sounding language by
>Gould and Wilson, why is he picking out only evolutionists? What about all
>the physicists who've used similar language? Would Ruse have us believe that
>physics is a religion too?
Hi Richard,
Here are some differences between physics and RM&NS which might make the
latter a religion. I don't use the word evolution, because while the study of
evolution could be science, as practiced by present-day supporters of "random
mutation and natural selection as an explanation of macro evolution" it does
resemble religion.
Religion is evangelical. Supporters of the faith go to great lengths to
persuade others to share their beliefs. On the other hand, physicists don't
get emotional if someone questions Big Bang or Steady State theories of the
universe. They don't appeal to the ACLU or courts to enforce compliance to
either theory.
If religions become powerful and widespread, they have sometimes used
intimidation as a means of enforcing conformity to some orthodoxy. Take the
following incident:
In April, the Michael Polanyi Center for Complexity, Information and Design at
Baylor, a Waco, Texas, school affiliated with the Baptist General Convention
of
Texas, sponsored a conference featuring leading spokesmen from both the
Darwinian and intelligent design camps. The meeting focused on the question of
whether the universe is self-contained or whether something beyond it is
necessary to explain its existence and function.
. Speakers from both sides of the debate were invited -- Dembski and Behe,
as well Alvin Plantinga, Robert Koons, Simon Conway Morris, William Lane
Craig, Alan Guth, Everett Mendelsohn, Mancey Murphy, Ronald Numbers, John
Searle, and even the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg." The faculty of Baylor
erupted into angry protest, arguing such discussion would "damage the
reputation of the university".
Three days after the conference, the Baylor faculty senate voted 26-2 to
close the center.
Many proponents of ID are religious, but some are not. Darwinists accuse
those who claim they are not "creationists" of being "stealth creationists".
Eugene Scott and most other supporters of RM&NS stridently denounce as
"creationists" anyone questioning "random mutation and natural selection as
an explanation of macro evolution". Even Southern Baptists have become so
terrified of being called "creationists" that they would stifle open
discussion of "Intelligent Design".
As a contrast to Darwinists, following is a quote from an anonymous physicist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
"Bell's theorem for dummies. Well that is a bit more difficult. The
simplest way to put it is to say that electrons behave as if they have a
secret way of communicating with each other over what is theoretically
enormous distances. (Experiments have verified this for a few meters, but
there is no reason why it couldn't be over the entire length of the known
galaxy.)
There is something else about Bell's theorem you should know. The
electrons exhibit this "clairvoyance" in a way that precludes us humans
from sending signals along this hypothetical "channel" of communication
that electrons seem to have.
In fact, to a trained physicist, there isn't really a "channel of
communication". In fact physicists seem to be the only people who are not
totally perplexed by all this. They are used to calculations that don't
really make sense. Gell Mann wrote a book about particle physics, and
described all the fuss about Bell's theorem as "poppycock" (or some such
word). I spoke to so somebody who talked to Gell-Mann recently, and
apparently he has recanted, and now thinks Bell's theorem is truly strange."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
In contrast to physicists, can you imagine a Darwinist admitting they do not
know how the diversity of nature occurred? Can you imagine a Darwinist
admitting they don't know whether or not mutations are random? Can you
imagine a Darwinist acknowledging that Natural Selection might have played no
part in the creation of the information contained in life? Can you imagine
a Darwinist admitting "life is truly strange"? Can you imagine a Darwinist
allowing the following question to be open for consideration:
Is the universe is the result of a rational design or merely the result of
random processes?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 15 2000 - 12:58:49 EDT