Bertvan:
Hi FMAJ, I am not a scientist, and make no pretense of engaging in scientifi
c
discussion.
I apologize for the confusion
Bertvan: Evidence can be found for almost all sides of any question.
Anyone interested in forming their own opinion Darwinism and ID would do
well
to read those scientists who make the arguments. Nothing would be
accomplished by my repeating it here.
Indeed, I have read quite a bit about ID and it is clear that a natural
designer cannot be excluded as the creator of ID. Furthermore there are quite
some problems with Dembski's ID arguments and Behe's ID/IC arguments.
Bertvan: I am a part of public opinion. There
are a few Darwinists who seem to sincerely believe nature's complexity was
"created" by random mutation and natural selection. However, for the most
part, those involved in this emotional defense of the theory are more
interested in bashing religion.
Nice unsupported assertion. Are you saying that those involved in an
emotional defence of ID are interested in bashing darwinism? Rethoric is so
unproductive. Especially when it is unsupported.
Bertvan: I don't think the public is yet completely
aware of this. I believe such awareness could be helpful when evaluating
the
evidence.
I agree that we Christians could benefit a lot from learning about what ID is
and what it's problems are. Especially the latter one.
FMAJ
>True but it's obvious where the ID movement wants to take it. If they
only
>realized that since it does not identify the designer, natural forces
could
>be the designer making ID nothing more than "nature did it".
Bertvan:
True. Most IDs have nothing against "natural forces".
Fine, then it is clear that there is no real value in ID? But I would like
you to support your argument.
Bertvan: In fact, many more
details of the design - whether it was designed by a god or "natural
forces"
- will probably be revealed, once we get past this insistence that it had
to
be "random mutation and natural selection".
You might be wrong although that is faith based assumption. And if natural
forces cannot be excluded then ID still can point to random mutations and
natural selection.
Bertvan: The Darwinists are the ones
obsessed about the designer; IDs keep saying forget the designer.
For obvious reasons but ID'ers also seem to forget that nature can be the
designer therefor ID has little value. It could be 'design' or 'apparant
design' exactly as it has always been.
Bertvan: They are
more interested in the design. If most of the IDs happen to be Christian,
that is merely an indication to me that they are apparently more open
minded
than the religion bashers.
Another unsupported and rethorical assertion dear Bert. Are you sure that
Christians are more open minded?
FMAJ
>Darwinism does not deny design. A common fallacy.
Bertvan:
Great to hear! What are we arguing about then?
Indeed. So why did you make that assertion?
FMAJ
So natural forces can be definitely a form of ID? That does seem to reduce
the meaning of ID a little.
Bertvan:
Seems to me it expands it. All ID has said so far is that nature is the
result of a design, rather that random processes. The design obviously
includes "natural forces".
There is still nothing more that ID has to offer at that point. We see
something and wonder "was it designed". When ID is infered (if it can be done
reliably, another major if) then ID still does not add much to our knowledge.
Is there any independent evidence of non-natural design in biology? Not
really so until then design really does not add much. Evolution also leaves
open the avenue of non-darwinism but until evidence of such exists there is
really nothing to 'worry' about
Bertvan: I have yet to encounter an ID advocate arguing
against "evolution" as defined as "change over time". They argue against
"random mutation and natural selection" as having created nature's
complexity.
I wonder if all ID'ers were willing to accept evolution (common descent). I
doubt it. Fine, if there is a good reason to doubt that random mutations and
natural selection created all complexity then show evidence. Even
evolutionists hardly believe that this is the only form of evolution.
Bertvan: If Darwinism wants to redefine itself to allow the *possibility*
of teleology, and redefine random to allow the possibility of design, I
wonder who will have won the argument?
Darwinism always allowed a designer who designed through evolutionary
mechanisms or mechanisms undistinguishable from evolution. But those
arguments belong in religious faith. If (ID) design is redefined to mean
"random or we don't know" then who really has won?
I'd say science.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 11:49:39 EDT