In a message dated 9/30/2000 1:20:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Bertvan@aol.com writes:
> Ralph:
> >You realize that this puts you outside of Behe and most current ID
> >thought. Behe clearly says that this scheme *can not* produce
> >irreducibly complex systems, like the molecular motors that drive
> >flagellum. Adding minimal intelligence to the menu means nothing.
> >Behe is adamant: IC systems can not be produced gradually by small
> >steps. Period. And, of course, evolutionists say it's chance, not
> >intelligence, so, once again, you find yourself in a lonely position.
> >But probably you don't mind.
>
> Bertvan:
> ID is not yet a dogma. Anyone looking an alternative to "chance variation
> and natural selection" is welcome. I had Hoyle's Intelligent Universe more
>
That by itself is a dogma. Reading Philip Johnson it becomes harder to deny
that ID is quite dogmatic.
"Johnson argued that the scientific priesthood has banished God from
allowable discussion, leaving Darwinism as the only game in
town..."
"All four speakers were exceedingly cautious in responding to
questions about how ID theory relates to religion. Meyer
emphasized that the
issue is about two different scientific theories with large
implications for
theistic and naturalistic worldviews. When asked if he was
being too tentative
about ID theory not being a proof of God, Meyer replied
that using the
principle of uniformitarianism -- that the present is the
key to the past --
naturalism is insufficient, and a designer is thus
needed..."
> in mind than what you describe below. The intelligence I had in mind would
> be
> a component of all life, perhaps its defining characteristic. I understand
> Margulis believes a degree of consciousness is characteristic of all life.
> (Margulis, having paid the obligatory lip service to natural selection, is
> still recognized by the establishment. Right?)
>
It's sad to see the use of such ad hominems. The suggestion that Margulis is
"paying lip service" shows how dogmatic ID proponents really can be.
"Johnson argued that the scientific priesthood has banished God from
allowable discussion, leaving Darwinism as the only game in town..."
>
But hey, it isn't anything I'm trying to sell. To me anything sounds more
> plausible than "chance variation and natural selection".
> Bertvan
>
>
> The irony of this versus your remarks about dogmatism must not escape you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 16:28:12 EDT