Bertvan
>>Hi Ralph,
>>One reason this agnostic is attracted to ID is exasperation with "chance
>>variation and natural selection". I am interested in many people's thoughts
>>on evolution, including panspermia, Lamarckism, Holism -- and Fred Hoyle's
>>"The Intelligent Universe". To me, "intelligence" is the significant part
>>of ID. I doubt evolution was the result of some rigid "plan". However the
>>entire process is loaded with "intelligence". I believe nature is the
>>result of intelligence and not the result of a series of chance events.
Ralph:
>I can understand and appreciate a wide-ranging interest but it does
>seem like you have settled on a particular personal interpretation of the
facts
>of evolution. If evolution was not the result of some rigid "plan" then was
>it a flexible "plan" or no "plan" at all? If it was a flexible plan, how
>do we distinguish it from a series of chance events? If there was no
>"plan", why do we need to postulate an ID?
Bertvan:
I sure didn't mean to give the impression I'd settled on "any particular
interpretation of the facts of evolution". I consider evolution a great
mystery. People use all sorts of rational arguments about whether evolution
was the result of chance or intelligence. IMHO none of these arguments
conclusively dictate chance. Common sense tells me chance is an unlikely
answer. No scientist "needs" to postulate ID. Only those who consider
chance unlikely.
Bertvan:
>>I probably disagree with most of Philip Johnson's political
>>positions and views on religion. However I do agree when he charges that
>>Darwinism has been used as an attempt to impose materialism upon society as
>>"scientific truth".
Ralph:
>I have never seen any proof for these conspiracy theories.
Bertvan:
I don't consider it a conspiracy. I don't assume everyone who disagree with
me is either stupid, dishonest or has ulterior motives. Materialists are
quite sincere and intelligent, and I understand what they consider evidence
for their position. I haven't noticed any Darwinists extending such courtesy
to those who disagree with them. Some Darwinists appear downright
evangelical. Once materialists lose the ability to portray as
"creationists" everyone who disagrees with them, I'll be content to leave
everyone to their own opinion on the subject.
Bertvan:
>>Being committed to neither atheism nor theism, I would
>>protest either being imposed upon society as "truth", scientific or
>>otherwise.
>Ralph:
>Hmm. You support a recall of all missionaries, I suppose? A
>ban on evangelism?
Bertvan:
I see no reason to try to limit either materialist or theist evangelicalism.
I object to labeling one as evangelicalism and the other as "scientific
truth".
Bertvan:
>> At the moment no one is trying to impose ID upon anyone. It is
>>being suggested as an alternative way of viewing nature. Materialists are
>>still free to dream up their elaborate "chance" explanations. That doesn't
>>appear good enough for them. They seem to want to prevent anyone even
>>considering anything but "chance variation and natural selection".
>
Ralph:
>I don't think ID is being suggested "as an alternative way of viewing
nature".
>That's playing down what they're after, IMHO. They want ID recognized as
>a *scientific explanation* of the facts of evolution. That's considerably
>different.
Bertvan:
ID is recognized as a *scientific explanation* by some. (at the moment a
minority) Obviously those supporting a design inference are proposing a
different explanation of the facts of evolution. Both sides are stating their
position, and both sides hope people agree with them. Those who agree are
free to do so, just as others are free to disagree. Why is it different from
any other scientific or philosophical disagreement?
There will always be materialists. I have no wish to change their
philosophy. I object to the tactics being used to try to discredit those who
question Darwinsm. I see very little personal attack coming ID supporters.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 13:55:29 EDT