Hi Ralph,
Most Darwinists consider these discussions debates, with the winner being the
one who can think up the most offensive insults, the most scathing sarcasm.
Most Darwinists also seem more interested in bashing religion than in
discussing evolution. Neither of these appear true of you so far. Nor have
I found such attitudes prevalent among skeptics of Darwinism. I call myself
an ID supporter as much out of distaste for ID critics, as commitment to any
particular ID concept. Some scientists have claimed to find a design
inference helpful. I haven't noticed anyone trying to impose this concept
upon scientists who don't find it helpful. However, ID critics appear
offended that any scientist should use an inference they don't find useful.
What is it to them? Why should the biologists at Baylor raise such a fuss
about it even being discussed at their university? Why the constant
insistence that any skepticism of Darwinism (chance variation and natural
selection) is equal to "creationism"?
I don't know how evolution occurred. I am interested in everyone with an
original thought on the subject. I was skeptical of "chance variation and
natural selection" as an explanation long before I ever heard of Johnson,
Denton, Behe, Dembski, Kauffman, panspermia, or other writers who apparently
share my skepticism. If we ever achieve further understanding of life, I'm
convinced we will have to think of life beyond the framework of the orthodox,
Darwinist, materialist model. (I have no desire to disturb or antagonize
those people who are satisfied with their present understanding of
evolution.) It appears obvious to me that intelligence, free will,
creativity, spontaneity, and consciousness are all a part of life. Direction
in evolution also appears obvious, as well as the observation that complex
biological systems were not likely the result of chance. I have no desire to
try to change the opinion of anyone to whom the opposite appears obvious.
Neither view has been established with any certainty.
Some argue that science is merely methodological naturalism. In that case,
science should remain silent on questions of teleology and origins. I agree
with Johnson that in biology, science has tried to exceeded it's authority by
declaring that evolution can be explained by purely naturalistic mechanisms -
and Darwinism seems to be the best naturalistic explanation anyone has been
able to come up with. My participation in these discussions is a search for
explanations. I also find them helpful to clarify my own thoughts. I've
found people supporting ID to be more open to new thoughts than those
defending Darwinism.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 12:48:58 EDT