BV>If anyone admits they don't know how life's complexity arose, I don't
>>disagree with them. Yes, I know selection probably occurs. It selects
>>traits and genes already in the gene pool. I question that it is
responsible
>>for creating complex, novel organs, systems and body parts. Those were
>>"created" by the "mutations". I'm skeptical that those mutations
occurred
>>without plan, purpose, or design. Since that is something that can be
>>neither proved nor disproved at this point, I insist that everyone is
>>entitled to their own judgement on the matter.
Steve Jones:
>I certainly agree with Berthajane on this. While I believe that design in
>general, and ID in particular, are both true, and that therefore all
theories
>of naturalistic evolution which ignore or deny design are, to the extent
they
>do so, false, I do not believe that such evolutionists should therefore be
>suppressed. To me the optimum situation is where all the assumptions and
>facts can be laid out by all sides with people being free to make up their
>own minds.
>Unlike the naturalistic evolutionists, I am confident enough of my position
>that if people were given *all* the assumptions, and all the facts for and
>against both design and undesigned naturalistic evolution, a large number
>(if not most), would chose design.
Bertvan
Thank you, Steve. I'm not always "confident of my facts", but I know you
will usually produce them if they exist. My main interest in this
controversy is arguing for everyone to get a fair hearing, without fear of
abuse or ridicule. And that is happening. I understand a peer-reviewed
journal has promised Behe to publish a paper on ID within the next 800
years. :-) No idea could be as much of a danger as its attempted suppression
would be. Opinion changes slowly and a new generation, not already committed
to defend any orthodoxy, might be more open to ID. Have you noticed any sign
of such open discussion among your fellow students?
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 13 2000 - 12:04:38 EDT