>Tedd
>>I would never agree that people understand each other or have
> > seen or understood the same evidence in the vast majority of
> > disagreements. (I've responded to many of your posts,
> >Bertvan, but we've hardly ever gotten into a discussion of *details
> > and evidence* for or against ID. We talk mainly about feelings
> > and motives and emotion, all kinds of subjective topics, but
> > rarely objective evidence. Quit honestly, I don't think
> >you've seen the same evidence I have at all.)
>
>Bertvan:
>Hi Tedd. I am not interested in discussing the details of scientific
>evidence. That is done in great detail on the web, and will eventually be
>settled by scientists.
this has already occured and you didn't like the answer. How do you think
they settled the question? They didn't get together and vote on their
feelings, I can assure you. They examined the evidence. But let's imagine
that they have *not* found any answers. How will you know when they do?
How will you know what they come up with and why?
>People with scientific degrees express differences
>of opinion, and I tend to trust those scientists who are civil, are tolerant
>of differences of opinion, and don't misrepresent those who disagree with
>them.
unless they come to a conclusion that you don't like
>I agree with Johnson when he suggests that the seemingly emotional attachment
>to RM&NS is ideological, just as the attachment of many people to ID is
>probably ideological.
the attachment to RM&NS is based upon observations and the attachment to ID
is based on religion.
you *must* dismiss the evidence and necessity for evidence and even avoid
the discussion of the evidence because that evidence contradicts what you
wish to believe.
>Since I don't believe
>science has any business making ideological statements, any acceptable theory
>should accommodate either atheism or theism.
I agree. And evolution does.
>I personally don't see how a
>theist could buy RM&NS, but I respect the decision of those theists who
>apparently manage to do so.
why? Theists believe they are seeing how their god created.
>My main concern in the controversy is the
>tactics employed by each side of the argument. For what my judgement is
>worth, those writers who support ID (or oppose RM&NS) usually sound
>reasonable.
propaganda is intended to sound reasonable--especially to people who
carefully shelter themselves from the evidence--or who have had the
evidence concealed from them.
> For that matter, why
>get hysterical about those people who happen to believe in a literal
>translation of Genesis? Do you actually fear that is going to replace
>science?
yes. I'm afraid that one contingent of one of the many religions in the
U.S. will find a way to force their religion down the throats of all the
others. That Muslim and Hindu parents will be forced to pay for their
children to have a Christian education in *science* class. Yes, I'm afraid
of that. I hate it and I will fight against it. Yes, I will.
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 : Thu Aug 10 2000 - 18:32:22 EDT