Bertvan@aol.com writes
in message <2f.90d2041.26c470ef@aol.com>:
>
> Bertvan:
> Hi Tedd. I am not interested in discussing the details of
> scientific evidence.
Well, then there's little to discuss, since reasoning about
scientific evidence - empirical knowledge - is the only sure
way to eliminate a faulty impression of the universe. What's
left is dangerously uncertain: subjective impressions, gut
feelings, intutition, wishful thinking.
<snip>
> If RM&NS is so obviously the superior explanation, why all the
> effort to ensure that the ID position is not heard?
That's more conspiracy theory than fact, made more plausible by
only reading one side's versions of the controversy. All minority
views voice the same complaint ad naeuseum. It seems far more
likely that the views themselves lack substance than that
scientists would reject perfectly well reasoned substance because
it questions the status quo. And sure enough: we find that ID
science is just plain weak by admission of even some of their
sympathizers. Science is conservative and scientific consensus
won't change without good solid arguments.
I keep making these statements expecting an ID proponent to
challenge them on the basis of scientific evidence. I guess
not you, though, Bertvan. I guess your argument is that since
Philip Johnson is polite he must be right? (Are we reading the
same Philip Johnson??)
> 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?
"Hysterical" is clearly an emotional overcharacterization,
but to answer why I, personally, am made uncomfortable by the
knowledge that there exist people who believe in a literal
interpretation of Genesis, it's because that view forces people
to either segregate themselves from society to prevent exposure
to counter-evidence (I don't like segregation on principle),
and/or it entails painful realizations and drastic worldview
realignment for those individuals who do find out the truth.
In short, I'm not comfortable with the idea that people have a
right to keep other people ignorant. Ignorance leads to
suffering in many ways. But force-feeding people knowledge
is obviously not the way, either. People resist knowledge
for fear that it may weaken cherished ideals. (Would that
we all could be atheists, starting from a position of
despair, humility and full recognition of the inconsequentiality
of human beings before processing the evidence and maybe
finding reason to hope. Going the other way from the position
of God's ultimate creation to a collection of atoms seems to
present so many more obstacles.)
> Bertvan:
> You seem to feel it is enough to demonstrate that RM&NS *could*
> happen. I'm more interested in whether it appears likely that
> [ life ] *did* happen by RM&NS.
I'd think you'd be looking at the scientific evidence and
attempting to see on which side it best fits. Instead, you seem
be using a subjective impression of a couple of biologists and
a lawyer combined with your gut feelings, intuition, and what
seems to be a degree of wishful thinking to disprove RM&NS in
your mind. If the history of science has been any indication,
that's not going to work, and further, it will fail disasterously.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 10 2000 - 18:57:10 EDT