>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.
Ted Hadley recently posted a note wherein he said he wished his beliefs to
match reality as closely as possible. I have the same strong wish. That's
what a debate list like this is for--to discuss how well ideas match
reality. Young earth creationism is "wicked" because it does not match
reality in any way. However, that doesn't stop its proponents from trying
to get it taught as science in public schools.
>At the moment, their beliefs don't
>seem likely to become a majority view, and are no threat to society or
>"science".
as has been pointed out on this list and elsewhere they have already had a
bad influence on the way science is taught in public schools. They have
already done quite a bit of damage. American science teaching lags *way*
behind other developed countries.
>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".
intolerance toward lies is ok in my book.
>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".
anything having to do with psychiatry or brain function. You've made that
abundantly clear in earlier posts.
>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).
it is wicked to lie. It is at least foolish to cling to a belief that is
patently grounded in wishful thinking.
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 17 2000 - 13:00:52 EDT