>Bertvan:
>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".
Absolutely nobody disagrees with this. You are stating the obvious. Now.
Are the criticisms legitimate? And must they stand without refutation? and
if so, why?
>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.
This is the 2nd or 3rd time you have said that mutation and natural
selection are "made up." Pretending that these things have not been
observed or do not exist will not make them go away.
"Chance" and randomness exist in the world. They are required for freedom
and creativity. What's wrong with that? Why must everything be railroaded
in a pre-determined direction? What's wrong with the universe being
spontaneous?
>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.
actually the scientific view has only existed for about 200 years, or since
the Enlightenment. Before that teleology and design were assumed, at least
in Europe.
> 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.
Saying "you are wrong and here's why" is not a violation of free speech.
I've never heard of a Darwinist pretending to have credentials that he or
she did not have. If you ever hear of any, please feel free to post your
evidence.
And you didn't answer my question from before: If ID-ists and Darwinists
were both perfectly polite to each other, how would you choose which to
believe?
>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.
Dembski was dismissed as the head of the Polanyi center. He has not been
dismissed from the faculty of the University. He has been given complete
freedom to continue to pursue his ID studies--but as a *religious* idea,
not science. Dembski refused to adhere to the scientific method. That's
fine, it's his choice. However, he can't both ignore the scientific method
*and* pretend what he is doing is science.
And you are an agnostic. You don't really want religion taught in public
schools. Neither would the Christians, if they were smart. After all, how
could they be sure the government would continue to teach *their* religion?
>"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?
have you read "Finding Darwin's God"?
Susan
--------
Always ask. Hang out with people who make you laugh. Love as many people as
you can. Read everything you can get your hands on. Take frequent naps.
Watch as little television as you can stand. Tell people what you want. Do
what you love as much as you can. Dance every day.
--------
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 12 2000 - 10:41:54 EST