>>Chris
>> >And, of course, truth is *much* less important than good taste, right?
>> >Besides, you have repeatedly claimed that Darwinism/Naturalism is a
> >>religion *and* you have repeatedly *ridiculed* it. Wouldn't that be bad
> >>taste, by your own claims? Just asking.
>Bertvan:
>>Since no one is going to prove the "truth" or "untruth" of any religion, one
>>might argue that good taste is all that is at stake.
Chris
>That, of course, assumes that it *is* a religion rather than a scientific
>question to be answered by observational testing in the real world.
Bertvan:
While I am aware that you consider Darwinism/Naturalism, (whether a religion,
philosophy, or whatever,) to have been proved by "observational testing in
the real world", a few of us are not persuaded by that "evidence".
Bertvan
>>If I have ridiculed
>>Darwinism/Naturalism it was inadvertent and in poor taste. I don't usually
>>try to dissuade Darwinists or materialists from their beliefs. Materialism,
>>or determinism, is a view widely held by perfectly intelligent people. I
have
>>stated repeatedly that your particular arguments are complex and well
thought
>>out. I object to materialism being imposed upon society as "scientific
>>truth".
Chris
>I object to that, as well, for a number of reasons, not the least of which
>is that materialism is a *philosophical* position, not a *scientific* one.
>Science does not validate materialism. Rather science *rests* on a kind of
>materialism. Thus, the attempt to impose materialism as *scientific* truth
>is not only bad science, it is also bad philosophy.
Bertvan:
"Science rests on a kind of materialism"?? A term like "kind of materialism"
seems vague for your usual writing, but such a break in intransigence is the
reason I sometimes talk to you.
Chris:
>On the other hand, the claimed negative consequences of materialism are
>*not* the consequences of materialism as such, but of *mixing* materialism
>with basic presuppositions of religions such as Christianity. Materialism
>implies that there is no external moral constraints on human behavior, that
>morality is not "out there" in the world, like "the Force" in the Star Wars
>movies, or like God in Christianity. But materialism does *not* imply that
>there is no basis for a morality at all, despite the attempts of Christians
>and others and even some materialists to make such claims about the
>implications of materialism.
Bertvan:
My objection to materialism has nothing to do with morality. I simply don't
believe it reflects reality. (As, I assume, your commitment to materialism
has nothing to do with morality.)
Bertvan
>>I have one point in these discussions. Namely, that one doesn't
>>even have to be religious to be skeptical of "chance and selection" as an
>>explanation of evolution. My hope is to see belief or skepticism of "chance
>>and selection" regarded as a legitimate difference of opinion - just as
>>materialism and its alternatives are legitimate differences of opinion.
Chris
>It is, as long as it's based on a legitimate factual basis and valid
>reasoning from that factual basis -- something we have yet to see -- or on
>simple ignorance ("I don't understand it, but it seems doubtful to me"
>would be legitimate, for example).
>What we see, instead, is *dogmatic* rejection of evolutionary theory -- and
>the repeated, endless repetition of the false or at least the seriously
>misleading claim that it is merely random mutations and natural selection,
>or, as you put it above, "chance and selection." Such a characterization,
>in context, would be acceptable, but you always treat it as a definitional
>statement of naturalistic evolutionary theory.
Bertvan:
I won't accuse those who believe in materialism of dogmatism, if you can
manage to do the same for skeptics of materialism.
Bertvan
>>I have also stated repeatedly that if everyone stopped calling ID
>>"creationism", I'd probably lose interest in the controversy.
Chris
>Since, in almost all cases, it *is* creationism, why does it bother you?
>Your own views do not seem to be creationist, but Jones' are, as are those
>of Dembski, Behe, Johnson, and so on. As a political and social movement,
>it is almost *entirely* creationistic, even though, technically, you are
>right; some people can be supporters of ID *without* being creationists. In
>fact, were it not for your bizarre concept of "design," your views would
>not be considered design theory at all.
Bertvan:
Sometimes your views on evolution are quite close to mine. I'm sure your
social and political views are closer to mine than those of most
"creationists". At the moment I find the arguments of those scientists,
creationists or otherwise, who criticize "chance and selection" persuasive.
The matter will be decided by scientists, not by me or anyone else
participating in these internet discussions. If the time ever comes when no
scientists criticize RM&NS, I'll have either changed my mind or I will feel
very lonely. I am content that anything I say on the subject might allow
other skeptics to feel a little less lonely.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 12 2000 - 14:05:52 EST