> Hi Chris:
>Saying "nature" did something is no more informative than saying god did it.
>The only questions science can try to answer is how they did it. ( either
>"god" or this guy, "nature") Most IDs do not deny evolution, they are
>skeptical of "accidental evolution"-- some process occurring without plan,
>purpose or design.
as Chris and I (and others) have pointed out that is religion, not science.
Plan and purpose are not detectible by science--people who wish to hold
these views as religious beliefs are perfectly free to do so. In fact they
have a constitutionally guaranteed right to do so. However, "most IDs" want
those religious views accepted and taught as science and they simply can't
be without violating church and state separation.
You don't seem to realize that that is the crux of the matter. Civil rights
are not accorded to citizens based upon whether they are rude or polite. In
fact, people whose civil rights are being violated tend to get pretty rude
about it. And people have constitutionally guaranteed right to practice,
teach and learn science without religious interference.
>
>Bertvan:
>Personally, I wouldn't place limitations on God, "nature", or any other
>unknown force.
I *could* go through the archives and cut and paste dozens of examples
where you do just that. Variation and natural selection, both empirically
observed by people all over the world thousands of times, have no apparant
limits. Yet you claim over and over in robotic fashion that they do with no
supporting evidence at all. "I said so" isn't evidence.
>Chris:
>>Behe's ludicrous assertion that alternate
>>pathways to a particular "irreducibly complex" structure are inherently
>>improbable is an example of the nonsensical results of this kind of
>>self-inflicted no-nothingism.
>
>Bertvan.
>What are these "alternate pathways"? Sounds like some sort of design to me.
Behe is saying just the opposite. He refuses to consider a convoluted
evolutionary pathway, assumes evolution is linear and since the IC systems
he observes could not have evolved in a linear fashion, asserts God musta
done it. Evolution is messy and situational. Natural selection can take
place for a myriad of reasons from the weather to astroid strikes. Since no
one can see even a moment into the future--and certainly a swarm of fruit
flies cannot--there is no way for an organism to "know" what will confer
fitness. It could be an ability to swim today and an ability to withstand
drought tomorrow because one thing in this world is certain: things change.
You have aserted that organisms direct their own mutations and therefore
their own evoluon. So explain extinction to me.
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 08 2000 - 10:43:34 EDT