Bertvan:
>Your posts seem to indicate you each have your own thoughts, and your
>differences often concern definitions of terms, such as "evolution",
>"supernatural", "random", "purpose", "intelligence", "meaning",
>"macro-evolution" , the difference between "apparent" design and "actual"
>design, etc. However most of you appear united on one point:
>
>Most of you are passionately opposed to ID.
>
> I read the ID discussion board. (Many of them are obviously scientists, and
>their discussions are usually too technical for much participation by me.)
>They also each have their own ideas about ID, and they are also united on one
>point:
>
>ID allows the possibility of a god, but does not require one. (Just as a
>"big bang" allows the possibility of a "creator", but doesn't require one.)
>
> ID supporters are all skeptical of Darwinism, (RM&NS as an explanation of
>macro evolution) but apparently few people still support orthodox Darwinism -
>except maybe Susan.
in that case I need to know what orthodox Darwinism is. I think the
history of life is a history of change. I think that all life evolved from
a common ancestor--that ancestor being a self-replicating molecule. I
think the fossil record demonstrates this very clearly along with the DNA
smiliarities of everything that is alive. (Our DNA is 98% identical with
chimps. Has anyone ever wondered how identical our DNA is to that of
yeast?. It's not 98% but it's high.) I think that Darwin's original ideal
of variation and natural selection are the mechanism for change. I think
mutations are the source of variation. I think it all happened
gradually--as humans reckon time. I think evolution does not always proceed
at the same pace and sometimes can move blindly fast--as geologists reckon
time.
Bertvan:
>Perhaps the controversy will eventually play itself out
>in the following manner: Most of those who can tolerate the possible
>existence of a god will call themselves ID supporters, and those who to whom
>whole idea of a god is repugnant will call themselves something else. You
>need a label to rally around, but you would probably do better to choose
>something other than "Darwinism".
This is how I think it will play itself out: Christians will eventually
learn to accept evolution and to view it as the way God created all life.
That God continues to create in the present day and into the future via
evolution will become part of the mythos.
Among all the hundreds of agnostics and atheists I've ever met (and as a
Unitarian you are always hip-deep in them) I've never met one that
considered the idea of a god repugnant. I've met a few that believe if the
god of the Bible exists he/she/it is not worthy of worship. But most just
simply and sincerely don't believe.
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 28 2000 - 13:00:28 EDT