Re: Randomness and complex organization via evolution

From: Bertvan@aol.com
Date: Thu Jul 13 2000 - 16:10:35 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: 1. Mike Behe's letter to SCIENCE, 2. Provine & Gish's letters, 3. Less of my posts!"

    Susan;
    >The scientific method only works on that
    >which is directly or indirectly observable.

    Bertvan:
    Such as evolution?

    Bertvan
    >>We know that different organisms have existed at
    >>different times, that they are in some respects similar and perhaps related,
    >>but that the differences are also great enough to avoid explanation.

    Susan:
    >you really are beginning to sound like a very typical young-earth
    >creationist. Throw in something about created kinds and you are there!
    >There are many examples of fossil series that gradually change from one
    >animal into another. *Some* lineages have breaks or gaps but the fossil
    >record taken as a while is very persuasive that evolution has occured. In
    >fact only a few people with a religious ax (or in your case an ideological
    ax) to grind don't "find it compelling."

    Bertvan:
    Hi Susan, you brandish the accusation of "young earth creationism" as the
    ultimate wickedness. The truth is, I believe young earth creationists are as
    entitled to their beliefs as anyone else. At the moment, their beliefs don't
    seem likely to become a majority view, and are no threat to society or
    "science". I would regard intolerance a serious threat to society and
    science, but I'm confident most of Western society is more tolerant than
    those few fanatics presently engaged in this emotional battle against
    "creationism".

    Susan:
    >I'm a Unitarian. I know
    >literally hundreds of agnostics. They seem to have a defining
    >characteristic which is to be constantly questioning, probing, wondering.
    >You have stated openly on this list that there are many areas of inquiry
    >that you *never* want questioned or explored.

    Bertvan:
    I'm a little curious about which "areas of inquiry that I *never* want
    questioned or explored". I have a strong belief in free will, but respect
    those who find reasons for believing otherwise. I don't even necessarily
    question "evolution"; it is the mechanism of (RM&NS plus drift) of which I am
    skeptical. I'm convinced diversity of beliefs and questioning everything is
    healthy. I have thoughts that would never have occurred to me except in
    response to hearing something with which I disagree. Hopefully my views
    similarly stimulate people who disagree with me. If you don't often
    stimulate me to respond, it may be because I'm not sure what you do believe -
    except that it is wicked to question a majority scientific belief (or to be
    a young earth creationist).

    Susan:
    >when a massive amount of evidence supports a theory then it has to at least
    >be provisionally be accepted as the truth. Otherwise, how do we know
    >anything? How do we build our computers, airplanes and microwaves? How do
    >we cure disease or sequence the genome?

    Bertvan:
    Perhaps we will more quickly understand the genome by recognizing it is
    result of a highly complex design, each and every piece serving an important
    purpose - and not a random accumulation of nucleotides thrown together by
    accident, most of which is "junk".

    Bertvan
    http://members.aol.com/bertvan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 13 2000 - 16:10:51 EDT