At 06:26 PM 10/02/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Bertvan:
>Most Darwinists consider these discussions debates, with the winner being the
>one who can think up the most offensive insults, the most scathing sarcasm.
Please provide some examples of offensive insults and scathing sarcasm.
I've been watching Ralph take your arguments apart. Perhaps that's what you
are referring to. If you make statements that seem to be based in fact in
an open discussion forum like this, those statements *will* be discussed.
You have been warned many times.
>Most Darwinists also seem more interested in bashing religion than in
>discussing evolution.
It seems Chris does this occasionally, but Ralph never has, neither have I
or Huxter, Van Till (a Christian himself) or most the evolutionists on this
list. Please post some specific examples.
>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.
that's a smart reason to be in favor of ID. Doesn't matter if it's actually
true or not. Considering how poorly they have defended their statements, I
have a feeling a lot of IDists agree with you on this point.
>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.
even though they have never been able to explain or demonstrate *why* they
think it is helpful. Perhaps we have overlooked it and you know of a couple
of examples you could share with us.
>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?
They made it extremely clear in their statement why they "made such a
fuss." They are scientists. Unlike you, it *is* important to them whether
or not ID is true and can be scientifically demonstrated.
>Why the constant
>insistence that any skepticism of Darwinism (chance variation and natural
>selection) is equal to "creationism"?
because ID boils down to "God did it" which is what creationism boils down
to. If there is a difference, please explain it.
>I don't know how evolution occurred.
that is blatantly, overtly and completely obvious. The concepts are so
simple they are easily graspable by 12-year-olds and you seem to have
avoided learning them or you wouldn't come up things like "the DNA directs
its own evolution."
>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.
as far as I know absolutely no one disagrees with this last statement.
>Direction
>in evolution also appears obvious, as well as the observation that complex
>biological systems were not likely the result of chance.
Evolution only seems to have a direction if you are assuming that the point
of all of life's history is to come up with us. This idea flourished in the
Middle Ages and still exists here and there. It's called "the Great Chain
of Being." If climate or whatever changed faster than humans could evolve
to keep up with it, we would become extinct just like 99% of all the other
plants animals. We are *not* the point of history. That is pure vanity.
>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.
One of them has been. And I'm here to persuade. You've never really
explained what's wrong with that.
>Some argue that science is merely methodological naturalism. In that case,
>science should remain silent on questions of teleology and origins.
why? Science *is* silent on the issue of the existence of the supernatural.
By why be silent on the issue of origins? What's wrong with following where
curiosity leads? I thought you were a big fan of spontaneity and creativity.
>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.
well, I've wondered. It's always looked like you just wanted a place to
make bald unsupported assertions that didn't get contradicted.
>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.
who cares? This is just ad hominem. "They are nasty so they can't be
right." I hate to keep ragging on Lenny Flank (especially since he's not on
this list and can't defend himself) but he's a nasty son-of-a-bitch but
he's still right.
Susan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 19:57:59 EDT