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