>Reflectorites
>
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:21:55 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>SB>This tidbit sounded hauntingly familiar.
>>
>>"In a belief system that uses magic as the most logical
>>explanation for illness, accidents, and other unexpected
>>occurrences, there is no room for natural causes, accident, or
>>chance. Witchcraft provides the explanation--it can be the
>>cause for most effects. "
>
>No doubt. If witches were *real* they could be an explanation for claimed
>ID effects.
>BTW in the past Susan has claimed to be "heavily influenced by ... Wicca":
there are witches and witches. Wiccan witches would *never* interfere with
the natural processes of the earth. I also doubt it would occur to the less
urban, non-American witches of Africa and Asia. The idea that the world is
"fallen," "corrupt," or innately sinful and therefore needs constant
tinkering by a all-powerful god is a purely Christian idea.
Your entire note below seems to overlook the word "influenced."
Wiccan/neopagan morality is based on "and you harm none, do as you will."
It sounds like a recipe for hedonism until you look a bit closer.
>which I understood to be a form of "witchcraft":
some neo-pagans and most Wiccans describe themselves as witches. However,
they are modern Americans and they generally don't attribute everything bad
that happens to them as coming from some magical attack. More traditional
cultures do that. In fact there are protective custody compounds all over
Africa to protect women who are accused of witchcraft. Also Wiccans have a
strong moral principle--remember "harm none"? They believe that any bad
thing they do comes back to them three-fold. You don't burn in hell after
you die, punishment comes back to you almost instantly. It keeps them
honest, and keeps the "magic" fairly benign. Traditional cultures seem to
lack that idea.
Do I believe in this magic stuff? No, not really. I'd *love* to have some
actual evidence that it works, but I haven't seen any yet. Unlike Bertvan,
I really need to see the evidence. I'm not going to believe it solely
because I like it as an idea.
> "Other interesting essays on this site: If you found this essay
> worthwhile, you might find some of these others of interest:
> abortion, Christianity, death penalty, doomsday cults, female genital
> mutilation, homosexuality, physician assisted suicide, the religious
> sources of the war in Kosovo, and Witchcraft (Wicca) These are
> the 8 most popular essays on our web site." (Robinson B.A.,
> "Ethical aspects of human cloning," 2000-JAN-15.
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/cloning.htm)
I will definitely read their Wicca essay. Thanks.
>Remember Darwinism does not *know* that all genetic changes in the 3.9
>billion year history of life were random with respect to adaptive
>improvement. It just *assumes* they were because it *believes* as an
>article of faith that there was nothing else available to direct genetic
>changes
>towards adaptive improvement.
As I have pointed out ot Bertvan, even if the mutations are not random
(i.e. directed by one of the gods, however you define "god") it would have
no effect on the observations that support evolution.
>Therefore *any* form of preexisting intelligent designer(s) would be an
>insuperable problem for Darwinism as a universal explanation of biological
>design.
no it wouldn't. If one of the gods is acting in an unseen manner, the
manner is, uh, unseen. It can't be observed or detected by science, so far.
Therefore all the mutations and natural selection we have seen so far would
not be perterbed by the discovery of the actual existence of some god or
other. We would just have more information in addition to what we already
have.
>Of course neither ID nor Christian theism would claim that "there is no room
>for natural causes" as Susan's quote says that "magic" and "witchcraft
>would. Both ID and Christian theism would limit non-natural causes to unique
>origin events, and in any cause would not even then rule out the Designer
>working through "natural causes".
most living IDs and Christians are modern people with at least a smattering
of scientific knowledge. Even you know, for example, that influenza is
caused by a virus and not evil spirits.
Susan
----------
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced
by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew
why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct
species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and
natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the
laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 11:06:01 EDT