At 08:43 PM 09/12/2000 -0400, you wrote:
> >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.
It's not trivial at all. It's the major motive force behind the ID
movement. You made a factual statement and I wanted to know your source.
I'm very curious about the demographics of this group and I thought you
knew of a URL. It *doesn't* seem like there are many ID supporters on this
list. That most of the people who post are Christian evolutionists, a
sprinkling of atheists like myself and Chris and now two agnostics, though
you are not like any agnostic I've ever met before.
> >>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.
yeah, I've heard
> > >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".
ah, you've moved the goal posts! In my example of evolution the fish that
were able to survive the salt water had a mutation that allowed it. The
salt water "selected" for it by killing all the unmutated fish. This kind
of thing is observed to happen all the time. It happens when you take
antibiotics or spray for bugs. You keep saying that RMNS had nothing to do
with it. Natural selection happens all around you all the time. There's no
particular reason it hasn't been happening all throughout the history of
life. Your belief that it has no effect on evolution is without foundation
in reality. That may explain your statement below.
> You seem eager to get into some discussion with me.
You keep stating your beliefs over and over in parrot-like fashion and
your beliefs have no foundation in reality. That's fine, because for day to
day functioning it won't really make a difference. However, if you start
"believing" that red means "go" and green means "stop." You are going to
get into some *really* hairy discussions! Frankly I like my beliefs to jibe
with reality as closely as possible. Anything else is a bit too weird for
me. So I point out your mistakes.
> I don't enjoy
>discussions with people who accuse those with whom they disagree of
>stupidity, dishonesty and ulterior motives.
I don't think you enjoy any discussion where the person with the opposing
view won't shut up and quit picking apart your dogmatic statements. In a
discussion like this *all* statements made by the participants will be
examined and analyzed for truth-value. It's a very good habit to get into.
You should try it.
>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.
The fish in my hypothetical lake prove you wrong about natural selection
just being a "philosophy." It happens all the time. "Materialist"
"philosophy", the assumption that there is no supernatural intervention and
nature acts in rational, regular ways, is required for science. Johnson's
tone of "gotcha" when he points out the "materialistic assumptions" of
science is a big yawn for anybody who knows anything about how science
works. Of course his tone of "gotcha" isn't aimed at anybody who is
educated in the sciences. His audience is anyone who knows nothing about
science.
And if you or anybody makes a factual statement that isn't true, I'm not
going to keep silent about it. I'll prove you wrong if I can. And if you or
anybody makes a factual statement and I know they know what they are saying
is false, then I'm not going to keep silent about *that* either. There's no
virtue in such silence. Quite the contrary.
Susan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 22:19:21 EDT