Bertvan:
Exemplfied below is the biggest difference between materialists and ID
supporters. ID supporters don't care how many people believe chance and
natural selection are the explanation of life. ID supporters don't care how
many are convinced that evidence will be found in the future for
naturalistic origins. They don't care how many people devote their careers to
pursuit of such concepts. ID is merely trying to suggest there is an
alternative for those who find design more convincing. I don't see many ID
supporters mounting personal attacks against mainstreem Darwinists,
questioning their credential or intelligence. Materialists, on the other
hand, appear angered by the very suggestion that anyone, much less a
scientist, should regard design and teleology a more convincing explanation.
When you ask materialists why they care so much that everyone be forced to
accept materialism, they usually predict that science will end, dark ages
will descend, and the world will disintegrate unless materialism is
triumphant. I doubt materialism will be triumphant, and I doubt the world
will end.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
>>Richard Wein: Other OOL researchers are working on other possibilities.
>>DNAUnion argues that, because we currently have no viable natural
>>explanations, we must accept ID.
>DNAunion: No. I don't argue that you or anybody else *must* accept ID, I
>say that I do, as a plausible alternative, and currently better explanation,
>for the origin of life.
>Also, I, combining your anti-ID position with your saying that we
*currently*
>don't have a viable natural explanation, get the feeling that you are
arguing
>that it is wrong to base the conclusion on what is currently known - that in
>the future, *surely* a natural explanation will be found. I can't argue
>against "vapor" evidence, nor is it my intent to dash your hopes and wishes,
>but *hoped-for future* findings should not be used in drawing *current*
>conclusions.
>>Richard Wein: But [OOL] researchers do not find the possibility of a
>>natural explanation to be inconceivable…
>DNAunion: Of they don't - it *MUST* have happened purely-naturally: they go
>into the whole investigation with that mindset pre-established and fixed.
>I believe that if someone who did not already "know" that life arose
>purely-naturally here on Earth examined the OOL research, they too would
find
>it quite unsatisfactory. And since it is plausible that in say 100 years
(1)
>humans will be able to create life - possibly even robotic life - de novo,
>(2) pinpoint an exoplanet that could likely support that (new) life (form),
>and (3) send that (new) life (form) to that particular exoplanet; then the
>main assumption a "quasi-Directed Panspermia" form of ID requires is the
>existence of such an ETI civilization about 4 Gya: everything else then
>becomes a "piece of cake". I personally weigh the two positions and find
>that based on what I have read, there are fewer assumptions and fewer
hurdles
>associated with the design model.
>>>Richard Wein: … and frankly I'll put their judgement ahead of DNAUnion's
>>(or the small minority of scientists who share DNAUnion's opinion).
>DNAunion: No problem - everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
[…]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 17:54:33 EDT