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).
Bertvan:
Hi Chris,
Since you appear to be sincerely asking the reasons for my position, I'll do
my best to explain. Each proponent of Darwinism probably has a slightly
different view of the term, as does each ID, and your view of evolution might
more similar to mine, in some respects, than some IDs. (I suspect sure you
would be offended if I suggested your idea of a "natural order" resembled
"design".) However you and I do have real differences. You believe all of
nature can be explained naturalistically. I believe
free-will/creativity/spontaneity/intelligence is as much a part of nature as
gravity. We know gravity exists only because of certain consistent
measurements. Free-will/creativity/spontaneity/intelligence will always
remain "supernatural" and unmeasurable. Science, as we now define science,
cannot deal with it. If you disagree, I feel no scorn for your view, and
approve the existence of differences of opinion. I respect your belief that
nothing exists that isn't capable of human understanding. I differ. (As
with any word, "science" is defined by public usage.)
Although you insist "random" doesn't have the meaning most people use, I
assume your more unusual meaning of the term does include "without plan,
purpose, meaning of design"- "non-existence of teleology". The existence or
non-existence of teleology can not be determined by science--or anything
else, and I reject any scientific theory that specifically denies its
existence. In my opinion, your definition of random does that. I am not
specifically skeptical of "evolution"- nor are most proponents of ID. Most
are skeptical of evolutionary theories which specifically exclude teleology.
ID could have been just another version of "evolution", debated along all
the other ideas such as Punk Eek, but the establishment seems determined to
see that doesn't happen. Why? Is it because the establishment is
determined to specifically exclude any view of nature which allows the
possibility of teleology?
Chris:
>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.
Bertvan:
One side's logical argument is seen by the other side as propaganda. Each
side sees the tactics of their "opponents" as atrocious. I regard the
tactics of the Darwinists as resembling McCarthyism, and apparently you view
anything said by skeptics of Darwinism the same way. IDs have made
statements with which I disagree. I disagree with lots of things, YEC's,
UFO's, Marxism, Freudianism, genetic determinism, Christianity, multiple
universes, TOE's, Bigfoot, astronomy, sociobiolog, etc., but at the moment
no one is mounting a crusade to try to intimidate me into believing anything
except Darwinism. Much of the public doesn't understand quantum mechanics.
Even if some people claimed they didn't "believe in quantum mechanics", I
doubt the physicists would mount a crusade, such as the on going
anti-creationist crusade, to remedy the matter. And if they did, I doubt
carrying on about the lack of intelligence and sincerity of such skeptics
would accomplish much. I can't believe YEC was ever a threat to science,
but biologists appear to regard any questioning of orthodoxy as a threat.
At times you wax quite lyrical about the intellectual shortcomings of "the
public". (Do you favor oligarchy over democracy.) You seem to feel people
should believe what the majority of scientist tell them to believe - in spite
of the many past scientific invalid positions. In the end, I have faith in
humanity's "collective intelligence", with it's assortment of differences of
opinion. Let's get the public really interested in evolution, for I'm
convinced the disagreement is not over scientific facts, but over philosophy.
That is where I in most agreement with Johnson. Let each side lay out their
best arguments. Everyone is equally entitled to settle philosophical
disputes - not just scientists. I'll continue to argue passionately for ID
as long as I judge their tactics to be more tolerant and less intimidating
than the other side.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 13:45:35 EDT