In a message dated 9/29/2000 9:31:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Bertvan@aol.com writes:
>
> >You seem to assume that "rational, intelligent choices" are invariably
> >better than a chance event. Yes, people usually do have "what they
> >consider intelligent reasons" for their actions--including panic stock
> >selling,
> >runs on banks and paying 7-foot basketball players millions of dollars.
>
> Bertvan:
> Hi Ralph, I can't believe you want to argue that chance is a better basis
> for
> decisions than intelligence. In any case, I am merely suggesting that,
> overall, intelligence would be more likely to produce rational, complex
> organisms than chance.
>
More likely. Interesting so you do not eliminate chance. That somewhat waters
down your previous assertions.
> Ralph:
> >That symbiotic relationship that benefits only one of the organisms
> >is often described as "parasitic" and it's frequently to the detriment of
> >the other organism. But I'll bet the ID knew that, too.
>
> Bertvan:
> I'm merely suggesting symbiosis is not a chance event. Motivation is
> involved.
>
Survival is involved. If you claim that motivation was involved then I am
surely looking forward to such evidence. Especially in the origins of the
symbiosis.
Ralph:
>
> >Or *for* it. :) Bertvan, if you need "certainty" before you'll accept a
> >explanation, science is going to be frustrating for you.
>
> Bertvan:
> The Darwinists are the ones who claim to know for certain that
> intelligence/
> mind/motivation/free will/Teleology play no important part in natures
You are confused. There are some Darwinists who make this claim. Your fallacy
is to generalize this to the common.
> processes. As a result they have ended up with a theory that most people
> don't find credible, but no one can think of an alternative. Nevertheless,
> for some reason they feel compelled to impose this theory upon society as
> "fact".
>
The reason why they "impose this on society as a fact" is because no one can
think of an alternative and since it is supported quite well by the evidence.
> Ralph:
> >I thought it was part of your definition of "materialist" that they
> consider
> >all things to be part of the material world? In that case, how could a
> >materialist justify calling anything "supernatural"?
>
> Bertvan:
> You'll have to ask a materialist. In the case of free will, I think they
> insist it is an illusion.
>
>
Are you talking about an ontological materialist. But Ralph has shown
correctly that your assertion was erroneous. Illusion is quite different from
supernatural. Would you not agree?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 29 2000 - 13:16:59 EDT