Brian:
>No, the point is that the purpose, plan or design is not something that
> science can say anything about. If it cannot, then people should keep
>quiet about it, unless of course they are just giving their opinions.
> Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even Darwinists :). (snip)
>When it comes to purpose, meaning etc.
>science doesn't know what it is talking about. So, when it comes to these
>things it needs to keep its mouth shut.
Bertvan:
H Brian. I don't remember anyone objecting in the days when quite well known
biologists were declaring purpose did not exist in nature, and Darwinism
supported Atheism. (In these public discussions, many people still do.) Now
that some scientists are arguing for purpose, why insist everyone remain
silent on the subject? Personally, I see no reason why any scientist
shouldn't include his belief in either the existence or non existence of
purpose as implied by his explanation of phenomena. All theories include
assumptions, and assumptions are often unprovable.
Brian:
>A long time ago I suggested that you should not pay too much
>attention to popular level books and articles. This is one reason.
>You will find all sorts of Darwinian evangelists that claim Darwinism
>proves there is no purpose etc. Remember the subtitle to Dawkins'
>book? But you find the same message coming from all manner
>of creationists, whether YE, OE or ID. Isn't it interesting that both
>sides agree on this point?
Bertvan:
I am not a scientist, and don't pretend to be engaging in scientific
discussions. I am discussing public perception of Darwinism. From what I've
read of the "authorities", few of them agree , and an official definition
might be difficult to achieve. Neo Darwinism as defined in the Modern
Synthesis? If evolution is defined as "change in the gene pool over time",
you would probably not find many YECs who denied that took place. By the
way, your insistence that supporters of ID are "creationists" might be
counter productive, as the public gradually discovers that most are not. But
why should I complain.
Brian:
>But you will not find this sort of talk, by and large, in the scientific
>literature. Random mutation
>means random with respect to the benefits of the organism.
Bertvan:
A mutation with a Lamarckian component would not be random with respect to
the benefits of the organism. Since no one understands the nature of the
"natural order", " biological pathways", "design", etc., that produce
beneficial mutations, a Lamarckian influence can not be ruled out.
Brian:
>I don't think of myself as a Darwinist in any usual sense of the word.
Bertvan:
Darwinism is specifically what I -- and others -- question. I know of no ID
supporter who is skeptical of the more vague definitions of "evolution". No
one questions that chance exists as a part of nature. We doubt that chance
is an important mechanism in the creation of life's diversity and complexity.
Fifteen years ago evolution meant Darwinism -- gradualism, random mutation
and natural selection, with the usual meaning of "random" - without, plan,
purpose, meaning or design. Many well-known scientists did not hesitate
equate it with atheism. Johnson was the first I discovered who questioned
Darwinism publicly. (There had been others, but I hadn't yet come across
them.) Some scientists have since questioned gradualism, have expanded the
meaning of "random" to include the possibility of teleology, have added
concepts such as "natural order" and "genetic pathways", etc. If Johnson,
Denton, Behe, Dembski, etc., played any part in that change, I am grateful to
them. Obviously those Darwinists who witnessed this adoption of a less
dogmatic definition of "evolution" feel only resentment. If someone were
able to show me the flaws in my thinking, and produce an explanation of life
I could accept, I would feel jubilation, not resentment. (I warn everone
ahead of time. Telling me how stupid or dishonest I am won't do it.)
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 25 2000 - 13:50:54 EDT