At 10:37 AM 08/14/2000, you wrote:
>Huxter:
> >My point being of course that one of the tactics of the ID movement -
> and of
> >creationism in general - is to pump up one's credentials/qualifications to
> >impress the lay public. Sadly, it seems to work all too often....
Bertvan
>Hi Huxter:
>In the end it will be the arguments of each side that impress the public -
>not the credentials. At the moment the Darwinists have convinced the media
>that only religious fundamentalists would question "random variation and
>natural selection" as the explanation of nature's complexity. When the media
>discovers they have been had, look out!
Chris
As I suggested in a earlier posts, the term "random" in this context is
misleading. At least, you did not use the term "random mutation," so you
have improved your terminology at least a little. But, even if we use the
word "random" literally, I may as well point out that randomness is as
complex as you can theoretically get. What we would need in a world driven
by randomness would be an explanation of *simplicity* (i.e., humanly
intelligible order). This fact has in fact been used as an argument for the
existence of God, with the premise being that, without God, there would be
nothing *but* randomness (i.e., absolute maximum complexity).
I bring this up (*again*) because you continue to abuse the word "random"
in this way, as if it really meant something scientific to say that
naturalistic evolutionary theory (or NET) used "random" variation to
explain complexity. If you want to emphasize that NET uses naturalistic
processes not directed by an intelligence (i.e., a smart mind), you need
only say "variation." You don't need the word "random" at all. Since it is
empirically obvious that genes can and do vary, perhaps in a number of ways
(recombination; adding or using genetic material from other organisms;
modifications caused by local deviations in chemical concentrations,
temperature, radiation, etc.; and small changes that turn existing genetic
material on or off, etc.), and since, *whatever* the cause or nature of
these changes, they sometimes *do* produce offspring genomes that are more
complex than the parent genomes, variation certainly *does* seem to be a
viable explanation for the *origin* of complexity in living things.
Selection only determines *which* increases in complexity will be allowed
to reproduce (and perhaps generate *further* complexity).
This brings up the issue of complexity in nature. Evolutionists in general
do *not* claim that naturalistic evolution explains complexity in nature
generally, but only in living things.
Finally, did you even bother to read what Richard Wein (and I) had to say
about the argument referred to in the title of this thread? Do you even
*begin* to grasp why we hold such arguments in such low esteem? Doesn't it
matter to you that ID theorists are using arguments such as that? That they
spout such arguments out at every opportunity without spending even a few
*seconds* considering whether such arguments have any merit at all? I could
give you example after example of arguments equally atrocious from
Johnson's books (I've already mentioned a few and have analyzed at least
one in some depth just recently).
What we see from you is not recognition that these arguments *are*
atrocious, but rather constant ignoring of your own claim that, "In the
end it will be the arguments of each side that impress the public - not the
credentials." The public, in general, does not care about the quality of
arguments. That is why Johnson has so many followers. That is why Hitler
had so many followers. Insofar as the public supports evolution at all,
it's not because it understands and accepts the arguments. It's because
scientists and intellectuals have accepted it and continue to support it.
Depending on the public to recognize sound arguments in issues like this is
silly when the public has been "educated" *not* to think, not to understand
rational epistemology, not to seek fundamentals, etc.
Huxter is right to be saddened by the fact that creationists and their
modern intellectual "offspring" (ID folk) too often get away with
pseudo-credentials being used to support arguments that are no good at all.
Why *doesn't* it bother you that such arguments are often accepted by the
media and the public?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 08:39:25 EDT