: suttkus@yahoo.com (Michael Suttkus) wrote:
>And I can tell you how centuries of people accepted the "obviousness"
>of the sun traveling around the earth without worrying about it's
>truth. What is "obvious" needs questioned. You claim to be a skeptic,
>why aren't you questioning?
Bertvan:
. Accepting the orthodox explanation for evolution (chance and selection),
which as you point out is accepted by the majority of scientists, would
hardly seem an act of skepticism.
There is also no reason to disregard the obvious and deliberately seek
obscure explanations until the obvious is proved false. The absence of
design in nature has not been demonstrated, and can probably never be
conclusively proved, one way or the other. Darwinism has suggested a
possible mechanism for evolution - chance and selection - which would deny
the existence of any design. (The other aspect of Darwinism, drift, seems to
be chance without selection.) Many scientists find this the most probable
explanation. A few find design a more probable explanation. Why should you
object that anyone should reach a conclusion differing from yours?
Michael:
>Besides, how is it obvious at all? I see no sign of intelligent design
>in nature. Quite the opposite, nature appears to have been designed by
>an idiot. I notice that you have yet to address any of the obvious
>design flaws I've pointed out. Why is this? Whenever the conversation
>turns to evidence, you turn away from the conversation. How typical.
Bertvan:
The arguments and evidence for design have been made by people more capable
than I. I could only repeat arguments developed by others. I'm sure you are
familiar with them, as I am familiar with most evidence and arguments for
chance and selection. Eventually the matter will be settled by scientists.
What you or I think is of little importance. My concern is the intolerance
of Darwinists. If it is legitimate for Darwinists to point out "design
flaws", it should also be legitimate of ID supporters to point out "Darwinism
flaws". You claim that life could only be designed by an idiot. I regard
the complexity of the design as awesome. Nevertheless, whether a scientist
believes in chance or design should make no difference in his daily work. An
ID supporter might ask different questions than a Darwinist would, but the
methods of doing science would be the same for both. ID theorists would
probably not be enthusiastic about Origin of Life research, but they might
look for function in what is not labeled "junk DNA", and what you refer to as
"designed by an idiot".
Michael:
>It seems to me that if one were agnostic, one wouldn't see any certain
>evidence of design in nature, or one wouldn't be agnostic anymore.
>Agnostics have my respect because they admit to be ignorant about the
>unknowable. IDers do not admit ignorance about what they don't know,
>instead they fill in any gap in their knowledge with "Intelligent
>Designer dunit." This is not admitting ignorance and is quite the
>opposite of what the word "agnostic" entails.
>Being agnostic is about doubt. Being an IDer is about pretending to be
>certain.
Bertvan:
I haven't heard any ID supporters express certainty about anything, including
the origin of the design. ID hasn't yet become a dogma, and its supporters
hold a variety of views. Most merely find design a more probable explanation
of macro-evolution than chance and selection.
Bertvan:
>> However many people seen psychologically unable to tolerate the
>> possibility of an unknowable.
Michael:
>So they create ID to make up for it. Science is all about unknowns.
>Scientists have to live with unknowns.
Bertvan:
Darwinists create "chance and selection" to make up for it. I haven't heard
a Darwinist admit they don't know how evolution occurred. Most appear adamant
that it was "chance and selection", a process that denies teleology. Science
knows nothing about the existence or nonexistence of teleology in nature.
There should be room for advocates of both philosophies in science - those
who believe life occurred by chance - without plan, purpose, or meaning, -
and those who believe life is the result of rational design. Both views have
always existed, and perhaps conflict will always exist between the two. I
only object when proponents of one view tries to silence the other by
ridicule and intimidation. I haven't heard an ID suggest that supporters of
chance should not be considered a part of the science community. I haven't
heard ID try to attack the credentials of Darwinists. If the teleology
advocates ever became a majority and tried to insist that their philosophy be
acknowledged as "fact", I would object to that also. Darwinism has taken to
the courts to ensure that only Darwinism is taught in schools. Baylor
University tried to banish ID from their campus. I think both were tactical
errors. Personally, I am delighted every time a teacher is disciplined for
mentioning ID in a classroom. Kids are much more attracted illicit knowledge
than anything stuffed down their throats by a teacher.
Bertvan:
>> If some materialists are more comfortable believing life and the
>> laws of nature are the result of "chance", fine.
Michael:
>Yet another display of total ignorance about the current state of
>science. Nobody claims that the laws of nature came about by chance.
Bertvan:
Are you suggesting that the universe and the laws of nature are the result of
a rational plan, and that it only life that arose by chance?
Michael
>Oh, sure! That's why the ICR hasn't tried to force "equal time" for
>their religion (but not, noticeably, anyone else's creationism) into
>classrooms. That's why Kansas removed all references to the earth
>being really old in it's curriculum. That's why we have groups around
>here screaming "Repent or burn!" and demanding that the ten
>commandments be put into schools.
Bertvan:
All the Kansas school board did was refuse to state a known mechanism for
macro evolution. They increased material concerning micro evolution.
You resent religious people trying to impose their religion upon you. I'm
sure religious people resent anyone trying to impose atheism upon them. Not
all Darwinists are atheists, but many of those emotionally defending
Darwinism are. Not all IDs are religious, but many promoting design are. In
science, Darwinists are now in power. If ID ever becomes the majority view,
I hope they behave better than the Darwinists have.
Michael:
>When you've got some evidence, feel free to post something with
>content.
Bertvan:
I'll feel free to post whenever I feel the urge, with or without your
permission.
"Daniel MacArthur" <dmac125@hotmail.com> wrote:
> *grin* Apparently evolutionists are entirely incompetent when it
> comes to science, yet are amazingly adept when it comes to
> concealing the greatest scientific fraud that the world has ever
>seen. Doublethink at its best, courtesy of Bertvan. :-)
Bertvan:
Have you read Icons of Evolution yet?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 11 2000 - 15:54:13 EST