>Susan:
>Bertvan: here is the post you missed. Also I still want to know the answer
>to this question:
Bertvan:
> >I notice that the non Christian ID supporters now outnumber the Christians
in
>>this discussion group, 2 to 1.
>Susan:
>how did you find that out? I've been noticing the occurrence of Christian
>evolutionists growing. Where did you get your statistic? I'd like to see it.
Bertvan;
I was merely pointing out that with Nelson, who claims he is not a Christian,
and me, an agnostic, we non Christian ID supporters outnumber Steve 2 to 1.
(On this discussion group.) The observation was in reply to your insistence
that ID is nothing but a ploy to promote religion. It seems a rather trivial
point to want to argue about.
>>Bertvan:
>>Maybe the perfect organism could adjust to all environments. Humans are
>>getting closer. Environments are part of nature and maybe changing
>>environments are part of the design. (You've given me things to think
about.)
Susan:
>all environments? A perfect organism that can extract oxygen out of water
>like a fish, out of the atmosphere like we, AND live with no air at all the
>way botchulism (sp?) does? Does God--excuse me, the designer--not have
>control over climate? Does he/she/it have to keep redesigning as climate
>changes?
Bertvan:
You could be right about botchulism, Susan. The only idea I hold strongly is
that nothing, including the biosphere, evolved by "random mutation and
natural selection", generally known as Darwinism. I argue for design in
nature, but make no speculations about a designer or the process by which the
design came into existence. I don't argue for "intervention", but don't
rule it out.
> >Bertvan;
>>The biosphere could not have evolved without death and extinction. What
>>happens if we attain immortality is another of those questions I don't
worry
>>about.
>Susan
>I thought, according to you, the biosphere didn't evolve.
>Extinction is caused by a lot of different things, but for example one of
>the things is where the environment changes suddenly and drastically and a
>population is wiped out. Say a freshwater lake full of freshwater fish is
>suddenly flooded with sea water due to a geological shift. All the fish
>die. That's extinction. If a few of the fish manage to survive the influx
>of salt, they will pass their salt-tolerance on to their descendants.
>That's evolution.
Bertvan:
As I have said repeatedly, I don't argue that evolution never occurred. I
don't necessarily question your example of micro evolution. I question that
"random mutation and natural selection" ever played any part in the
introduction of novel organs, systems or body parts. Since we only know of
one biosphere it seems difficult to imagine it could have evolved by "random
mutation and natural selection".
You seem eager to get into some discussion with me. I don't enjoy
discussions with people who accuse those with whom they disagree of
stupidity, dishonesty and ulterior motives. Most of my posts are to counter
the argument that ID supporters are religious fundamentalists and that ID is
nothing but a plot to promote religion. I have nothing to contribute in the
way of scientific evidence. I argue that "random mutation and natural
selection" is a materialist concept. I have no desire to dissuade anyone
from materialism, but I do argue that a materialist philosophy in not
required to do science.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 20:44:05 EDT