Susan:
>I strongly recommend you (and anyone else) read this little essay:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
>here's a pertinent excerpt:
Bertvan:
Apparently you are itching for an argument, and I am sorry to disappoint you.
I originally began posting on these boards because of the accusation that
anyone disputing Darwinism was a religious bigot. When I say I am not even
religious, you say you don't believe me. I see no point to a discussion with
anyone who doubts my sincerity and motives. I find it patronizing that you
keep telling me what Darwinism is. I read the entire talkorigins faqs
several years ago. I know what Darwinism is, and I also know what most
people think Darwinism is. I disagree with both. I do not believe macro
evolution is merely a lot of micro evolution. I haven't heard an explanation
of macro evolution that I find convincing.
As to the arguments against "random mutation and natural selection", they
have been made by people more articulate than I. I assume you have read
them. Why should I repeat them? If I ever have anything original to say,
I'll post it. When I get into a discussion, it is an attempt to fully
understand someone else's point of view. Stephen patiently explains the
arguments for ID much better than I could. My posts are merely meant as
moral support for those people who find themselves attacked as
anti-intellectual for questioning "random mutation and natural selection as
an explanation of macro evolution", Darwinism or any other part of the
theory. I also wish to add my moral support to those who argue that
Darwinism has become a religion. I fully agree with Johnson when he says
most of this debate is about philosophical naturalists trying to impose their
religion upon everyone else as "science". I believe there could be room in
science for ID.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 09 2000 - 16:19:09 EDT