Re: Piecemeal genetic differences as support for macroevolution

From: Susan Brassfield Cogan (susanb@telepath.com)
Date: Mon Sep 11 2000 - 20:24:49 EDT

  • Next message: Susan Brassfield Cogan: "re: Definitions of ID"

    >
    >Bertvan:
    > 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 *have* done that on occasion, but basically that is because nobody but
    their own leadership has ever tried to deceive them. No major evolutionist
    has ever turned out to be lying about their academic credentials. No major
    evolutionist has ever been even accused of concealing contrary evidence, or
    putting forth false evidence as "proof." You hear a lot of hoo-haw about
    Piltdown Man, but it was evolutionists who discovered, exposed and
    advertised the fraud. Creationists have never done any such thing with any
    of their hoaxes. Sometimes under pressure from evolutionists they will stop
    using the hoaxes as evidence (ever heard of the Paluxy Man Tracks?) but
    never on their own. Sorry Bertvan, it's shocking, but Creationists are
    dishonest and IDs are just a sub-group of creationists.

    >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.

    whether or not purpose exists in nature is a religious question not a
    scientific one. Science doesn't say there isn't purpose. They say there is
    no *apparent* purpose because it can't be detected. If you want to believe
    in purpose, nobody cares.

    >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.

    There is more evidence supporting evolution than you can examine in an
    entire lifetime. There *is* proof (as the word "proof" is used in common
    parlance) that evolution happened. If you examined some of the evidence it
    would no longer be a mystery to you.

    You are not the only one to whom evolution and science are a mystery.
    Science education in this country has always been lousy because of
    religious influence. Our students (and therefore our population in general)
    score *25TH* in the world in science education. That's embarrassing. We are
    going to end up hiring the Japanese and Germans to run our machines while
    our own people are sweeping the floors.

    Susan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 11 2000 - 20:28:49 EDT