Bertvan@aol.com writes
in message <5a.7ffc6a0.26a32e1a@aol.com>:
>
> 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.
Why are you on this list if you don't want to influence in any way?
Aren't you trying to influence me towards a particular point of view
right now?
> 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.
And you do that how? By repeating over and over "you're
entitled to your own judgement"? That seems pointless because
people already know they're entitled to their own judgement.
No, I think you want to influence those who are attempting to
engage the ID's to shut up and let everyone have their own
opinion, independently of data and hypotheses.
> I also want to assure everyone that skepticism of Darwinism is
> not necessarily tied to religion.
Hey, you can't say that. You don't want to change anyone's mind,
remember?
> 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's a shame those scientific arguments don't get presented on this
list.
> 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?)
Please read what I wrote again. The burden of proof is on those
who *want to change the minds of others*. If someone in the majority
way of thinking wants to change the mind of the minority, he or
she has just assumed the burden of proof with respect to that minority.
<snip>
> 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.
I don't know what you mean by free-will, creativity or spontaneity.
They're just words with your private meanings behind them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 16 2000 - 13:45:53 EDT