Chris:
>Then, people like Jones and Johnson could complain that the ID theory of
>planetary motion was not getting a "fair hearing" among scientists, and
>that it was not being taught in physics classes because of the secular
>"religion" of naturalism, and so on. Or people like Bertvan could claim
>that their theory that photons are highly intelligent, creative,
>spontaneous, and that they have free will was *also* not getting a fair
>hearing, and that scientists were not open to the best criticisms of their
>crazy view that there is no evidence whatever that photons are anything
>more than mindless, non-creative natural phenomena.
>No, the reductio ad adsurdum is not far-fetched; after all, Bertvan
>actually *believes* some such theory, and the case of ID in relation to
>life closely parallels the case of ID theory with respect to gravitation.
>But, fortunately, the Bible does not have a Genesis story about how God
>moves large masses in the vastness of space, or people like Jones really
>*would* be trying to "sell" an ID theory of planetary motion.
Hi Chris,
I hate to see you sounding like a typical Darwinist, accusing anyone
skeptical of "random variation and natural selection" of believing in a
literal translation of Genesis. Especially when I gather your aren't even a
real Darwinist, which you've sometimes characterized as passe. You
apparently believe nature possesses a "natural order" and variations might
not necessarily be without meaning or purpose. If the variations are already
rational and meaningful, Natural Selection wouldn't have to do any designing,
would it? On the other hand, if the variations were actually random,
without meaning purpose, plan, or design, surely they would outnumber any
occasional advantageous variation so as to completely drown it out. Your
NET is not too far from my view of "design". Many people advocating ID are
not opposed to a "naturalistic evolutionary theory ". They just don't
consider "random variation and natural selection" a likely explanation,
which is what most people mean by "Darwinism". In any case, whether the
variations are random, or occur according to some natural order or design, is
not something either you or I are likely to demonstrate. As a materialist
you can site evidence for lack of purpose or design, just as those believing
in design can cite evidence for their view.
I doubt anyone has suggested photons are "highly intelligent, creative,
spontaneous". (Certainly not me.) However the Copenhagen interpretation
apparently suggests photons might posses an element of spontaneity. You are
completely within your right to be skeptical of the Copenhagen
interpretation, but I don't see you attacking those physicists who do
consider it as "enemies of science". Every scientist has a right to define
himself as any kind of materialist he wishes. If you are arguing that every
scientist *must* be a materialist, that position should be clearly defined as
part of the present controversy over evolution.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 22 2000 - 15:01:00 EDT