Re: A problem with ID-theorists' view of macroevolution

From: FMAJ1019@aol.com
Date: Sun Sep 03 2000 - 21:05:48 EDT

  • Next message: info@vteams.com: "Vteams Fantasy Sports"

    Bertvan: 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 defens
    e
    of the theory is a little more imaginative than others I've read, but
    basically, is nothing new.

    What is important though is that the arguments are quite sound and indeed the
    rebuttals lacking, imho.

    Bertvan: You believe nature's complexity occurred without
    plan, purpose or design.

    Does he? There can be a plan even if nature was used to implement this plan.

    Bertvan: 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.

    Strawman.

    Bertvat: WHY SHOULD YOU CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE BELIEVE ABOUT MATTERS THAT
    CAN NOT BE
    CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATED?

    In matters of faith you are right. But this is about science.

    Bertvan: If your argument is such an obvious truth, you have nothing to
    fear from ID.

    Nobody is afraid of ID.

    Bertvan: Most supporters of ID accept that a majority of scientists
    presently believe
    RM&NS is responsible for nature's complexity.

    Just not all of it?

    Bertvan: 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.

    Origin of design is very relevant. Especially if natural forces cannot be
    excluded. If that is the case then ID is nothing more than a faith reinforcer
    but has little scientific value.

    Bertvan: 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.

    You seem to be confusing science and faith once again.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 03 2000 - 21:06:00 EDT