FMAJ:
>Are you saying that those involved in an emotional
>defence of ID are interested in bashing darwinism?
Bertvan:
Hi FMAJ,
Sure, but I would be willing to leave their atheism out of it if Darwinists
didn't stress their opposition to any theory allowing the *possiblility* of
a god.
Bertvan:
>> Most IDs have nothing against "natural forces".
FMAJ
>Fine, then it is clear that there is no real value in ID?
>But I would like you to support your argument.
Bertvan:
ID is obviously of no value to you. Other scientists are finding it a useful
concept. Why should you object? As for IDs having nothing against "natural
forces", those on the ID discussion board acknowledge any "natural force" for
which there is compelling scientific evidence. Everyone's definition of
"compelling" varies, but I find their arguments more reasonable than those
who dispute them.
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".
FMAJ:
>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:
I might well be wrong. It would appear your "faith" is stronger than mine.
FMAJ:
>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:
Personally, I don't see much difference between God or nature as the
suggested designer. I just doubt that, whichever did it, they used "random
mutation and natural selection". Under Darwinism, "natural selection" was the
designated designer. Whatever the origin of the design, ID questions that it
is "natural selection".
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.
FMAJ
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:
Most IDs accept more "common descent" than I do. Stephen does. I admit some
form of common ancestry, but am skeptical of one common ancestor. The
Chinese are suggesting up to forty. I doubt we can be certain of the number
of common ancestors until we have a better understanding of what actually
happened.
You seem a rather reasonable "Darwinist", if that is what you call yourself.
More like you and the controversy might disappear. Again, ID isn't opposed
to "evolution". ID is skeptical of Darwinism. (random mutation and natural
selection as the creator of complexity.)
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 17:23:58 EDT