Ralph:
>Hi Bertvan:
>What you say is too true. Anyway, I'm glad I asked because
>"simplistic" does not carry the credible/incredible meaning for
>me that it has for you. So, going back to what you said earlier,
>you find random variation and natural selection to be "too
>simple to be credible"? Do you feel creationism
>is simplistic?
>I would assume not since strict creationism says God did it and,
>Assuming the standard definition of a god as possessing
>omnipotence and omniscience, it should be easy to believe
>such a powerful entity created the complexity we see.
>So I would guess that, with your definition of simplistic,
>you do not find creationism "too simple to be credible"?
>Of course, if you were atheistic (I know you're not), the
>existence of such a supreme being might be "simplistic"
>(your definition again).
>If the above is true, then I suppose the same would apply to a belief
>that god (or something) engaged in certain acts of special creation
>at important times in the history of evolution to create the
>diversity we see.
>Your own theory involves "intelligence" of some sort, instead of a
>god or alien or something. That's what keeps your idea from being
>simplistic? I think I understand now why you refer to random variation
>and natural selection as simplistic. I can't sign on to your ideas as yet
>because I find them still too-unproven-to-be-credible. But I do want to
>thank you for taking the time to make your terms clearer.
Bertvan:
Thank you! I'm always braced for an attack in these discussions, and it is
an unexpected pleasure to find a nice tolerant man interested in
understanding someone else's views. My views are not only "too unproven to
be credible"; I haven't even heard them articulated - except perhaps by Hoyle
in The Intelligent Universe. James Shapiro might be heading that way. I
suspect that Intelligent Design is inherent in nature. The design is in the
process. Chance variation and natural selection is a process that doesn't
appear to contain any intelligence, as far as I can see.
I find some people's version of creationism and some people's definition of
God too simplistic for me. I wouldn't even attempt such a definition,
myself, but have no criticism of anyone who feels compelled to do so.
Whether or not God intervened in the evolutionary process can never be proved
nor disproved, and if it happened, will have nothing to do with whatever
processes of nature we are able to detect. I wouldn't regard anyone's views
on evolution a threat. I do feel social discourse is threatened when the
scientific establishment tries to exempt a particular theory from criticism.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 18:55:21 EDT