Bertvan
>>Considering the petty, childish bickering in which academics at universities
>>indulge, if Baylor and this board are typical, why shouldn't the public
take
>>everything they say with a grain of salt? I'll accept the technical stuff,
>>provisionally, but will view their interpretations as no more astute than
>>anyone else's version.>
Susan:
>Argument and debate is the way science is done. It's the only way to
>get closer and closer to the truth.
>Which technical stuff do you accept provisionally?
Bertvan:
I have nothing against debate, although I can't imagine what any "debate"
between you and I, neither of us scientists, would accomplish. At Baylor the
faculty didn't want ID debated - not in the science department, not in the
philosophy department, not in a special center to explore the relation
between science and philosophy. They didn't want it discussed anywhere on
their campus! If there were a couple of professors at Baylor who believed
the universe is the result of design and teleology, rather than chance, do
you suppose they would have dared speak up? Do you suppose there are
scientists, untenured professors, at other universities who don't express
criticism of "chance and natural selection" for fear of being denounced as
"ignorant creationists" or "religious fanatics"?
The facts I accept about evolution are fossils which appear to be related in
some way, perhaps by common descent. (Although some scientists are beginning
to suggest it was from some 30 or 40 ancestors, rather than one.) Organisms
change over time, similar DNA produces similar morphology, and I have no
reason to doubt accepted dating methods. I see no conclusive evidence
indicating how evolution occurred. "Chance and natural selection" was
Darwin's guess, and I have no quarrel with those who find that a satisfactory
explanation. However, I see no reason to discourage people from looking for
other explanations, such as Spetner's Lamarckism, Brigg Kleiss's horizontal
transfer, James Shapiro's intelligent DNA, Intelligent Design, and Kauffman's
self organization (which, to me, is the same as design.). Nothing you or I
say could have any effect upon a scientific understanding of life. However,
as long as you continue to insist that ID, or any criticism of "chance and
natural selection", is merely a form of creationism, I can argue that it is
not.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 25 2000 - 11:24:07 EDT