Re: WHY DOES THE UNIVERSE WORK?

From: Susan Brassfield Cogan (Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu)
Date: Fri Sep 29 2000 - 15:24:36 EDT

  • Next message: Chris Cogan: ""Apparent" CSI"

    >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
    >processes.

    You keep asserting this in spite of the fact that you have been shown over
    and over again that science merely says that *if* anything on that list
    above causes evolution, it is not detectible by science. *You* have
    interpreted that to mean that "Darwinists" are making such a claim.

    >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.

    I think you are quite wrong about "most people." Creationists don't find it
    credible. People who know nothing about biology, anthropology, geology,
    physics, cosmology or paleontology don't find it credible. People who
    examine the actual evidence are, more often than not, convinced that
    evolution occured. The bugbear about "materialism" is just a bugbear.

    >Nevertheless,
    >for some reason they feel compelled to impose this theory upon society as
    >"fact".

    you and your fantasies about jack-booted thugs in white lab coats! You
    don't care about the evidence which supports evolution. Scientists do. They
    care a lot. They don't give a rat's ass whether or not God is pushing the
    molecules around in an unseen way that can't be detected. If you think
    fungi and algae shook hands, signed some kind of agreement and personally
    *decided* to live together as lichens, that's fine. But a scientist is
    going to want to see *evidence* that such a thing actually happened. Until
    you produce that evidence, no scientist (or anybody who has a scientific
    bent) will jump on your little bandwagon.

    The same thing is true of ID.

    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 : Fri Sep 29 2000 - 15:26:58 EDT