Hi Chris,
I'm not sure what you are so eager to convince me of. I consider evolution
an intriguing mystery. I agree it could have happened almost as you
describe. You and I would always have a difference of opinion about details
due to our different philosophies. I doubt you could turn me into a
materialist. I believe life is comprised of things other than matter and the
physical forces we now recognize. I have listed some of them (intelligence,
consciousness, free will etc.) However I believe honest, intelligent people
can have philosophies which differ from mine.
I doubt random mutation and natural selection played much of a part in the
creation of life's complexity. Regardless of how you define "random", to
most people it means without purpose. Purpose may or may not exist, but I
don't believe it can be ruled out. I've considered many explanations of
life, including panspermia, Lamarckism, Kauffman's "natural order" and ID.
I applaud all of them as efforts to find some explanation more convincing
than "random mutation and natural selection".
Design seems apparent to me. I accept the obvious unless I see convincing
evidence to the contrary. I haven't yet seen convincing evidence that the
apparent design in nature is an illusion. If ID supporters can develop
convincing evidence for design, great. Maybe they can develop evidence that
will convince some scientists but not others. In which case, each scientist
can work under his own assumptions. Scientists who find a design inference
useful will use it, and those who don't find it useful would be free to
ignore it. ID supporters are not arguing for a change in the way science is
conducted.
What puzzles me is this emotional opposition to anyone even considering ID.
ID supporters acknowledge RM&NS as a legitimate theory -- supported by
evidence. Some of them even believe it played a part in evolution. I
haven't heard ID supporters attack the motives, intelligence or honesty of
those with whom they disagree. They don't appear to want to prevent anyone
from considering RM&NS. ID offers a choice. While many of the details of
biology and evolution are not always understood by laymen, everyone is
entitled to an opinion on the general principles, such as whether nature is
the result of a design or the result of random processes - whether purpose
exists as a part of nature. When people are allowed a choice about beliefs
for which there is no proof one way or the other, I'll lose interest in the
controversy.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 10 2000 - 12:53:01 EDT