Tedd:
>Burden of proof isn't assigned by anyone, it just falls on the
>person who wants to change the minds of others. (Generally the
>majority is not as interested in changing the minds of the
>minority)
Bertvan
Hi Tedd: I'm grateful to be spared any "burden of proof", because I don't
want to change anyone's mind about atheism, theism, materialism, free will,
RM&NS, ID or any detail of evolution. I respect the decisions of those who
have examined the evidence and made their judgements. I merely want to
encourage those who already believe in free will, and people who already
believe nature is the result of design - not random processes - that they are
entitled to their own judgements. I also want to assure everyone that
skepticism of Darwinism is not necessarily tied to religion. For many years
I was skeptical of RM&NS, but feared I might be the only non-religious person
feeling such skepticism. Discovery of books with scientific arguments
against Darwinism was a great joy.
It is also a relief to hear Darwinists are also not trying convert anyone to
their views. (In which case, they would have to assume a "burden of proof",
wouldn't they?) But since the majority, in this case the Darwinists, those
who believe evolution was the result of RM&NS plus drift, have no interest in
convincing anyone of anything, there should be no need for Eugene Scott's
crusade against either creationism or ID. Even "young earth creationists"
can now relax and express their views without fear of attack. If there are
academics who have secretly harbored doubts about Darwinism, they can now
come out of the closet and express their doubts without fear of being denied
tenure. They might even discuss their skepticism of Darwinism in the
classroom.
Tedd:
>Burden of proof in this instance might mean defining free will
> to mean something at all -- if we don't make decision based on
> things inside the universe, we make them based on things
>outside the universe? And we all know design looks obvious,
>but when we look deeper we discover human perception can't really
>be trusted to distinguish design from non-design. So we move
>on to other principles and methods.
Bertvan:
Although I've never heard a naturalistic explanation of
free-will/creativity/spontaneity, it never occurred to me to speculate it
might be "outside the universe". I see no reason to replace human
perception until it has been shown to be in error. Free will and design in
nature haven't yet been disproved to my satisfaction. Once mutations are
proved to be random, I will adjust my views about design.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 16 2000 - 11:26:33 EDT