Hi Chris,
Do you actually believe you are going to convince people that "random
mutation and natural selection" are an adequate explanation for the creation
of nature's complexity by telling everyone how stupid they are? Your defense
of the theory is a little more imaginative than others I've read, but
basically, is nothing new. You believe nature's complexity occurred without
plan, purpose or design. Since the existence of purpose in nature is not
something anyone is likely to demonstrate conclusively, your insistence that
everyone agree with your position is puzzling. You seem upset that anyone
should think differently than you on the subject.
WHY SHOULD YOU CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE BELIEVE ABOUT MATTERS THAT CAN NOT BE
CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATED?
If your argument is such an obvious truth, you have nothing to fear from ID.
Most supporters of ID accept that a majority of scientists presently believe
RM&NS is responsible for nature's complexity. You go your way and IDs will
go theirs. Personally, my only concern is in trying to see that ID is not
misrepresented. ID is not "creationism". ID assumes design. Some IDs
believe the Christian God is the origin of that design. Others consider the
origin of the design irrelevant.
I'm not interested in addressing specific points you raise. They have been
addressed by scientists more convincingly than I could manage. Go to the ID
discussion board. They will probably address them if you wish.
http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro
As I've said before, you have a well thought out materialist philosophy. I
have no desire to dissuade you from being a materialist. If you are going to
be so frustrated by everyone who expresses something outside materialism,
you are in for a rough life.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 03 2000 - 20:38:26 EDT