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

From: Susan Brassfield Cogan (susanb@telepath.com)
Date: Mon Sep 04 2000 - 10:12:02 EDT

  • Next message: FMAJ1019@aol.com: "Definitions of ID?"

    >
    >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?

    I think Chris's main focus is not purpose in nature. That's your main
    focus. The problem is, because of the religious belief that some god guides
    everything and therefore there is purpose causes a great many creationists
    to bend reality out of shape. That bothers *me* a lot. And when they insist
    that this twisted view of reality get taught and accepted as science, I am
    even more bothered.

    mutation and natural selection have been observed to occur. If you do not
    wish to believe that or cling to your wish for the mutations to not be
    random (as if that would make a difference to evolution, which it would
    not) that's fine. However, when you make statements in an open forum
    designed (by humans!) for discussion, your statements *WILL* be critiqued.
    EVERYONE on this list believes that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
    You don't seem to have noticed that nobody ever disagrees with you on that
    point (which you keep posting over and over and over). However I expect my
    opinion will be critiqued.

    If you make factual statements that are wrong, somebody is going to tell
    you so. If you make statements that lack any kind of logic, someone is
    going to point it out. Live with it.

    Susan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 10:15:41 EDT