>So according to Wayne it *does not* matter that there is a virtual consensus
>among evolutionary biologists regarding the undirectedness (by an intelligent
>agent) of evolution. But according to George (whom Wayne commends) the
>virtual consensus among evolutionary biologists against ID *does* matter.
>Why isn't that special pleading?? If you can explain away a consensus
>concerning
>the undirectedness of evolution among evolutionary biologists (as due to
>their not really knowing what they are talking about), then surely you
>have just granted ID proponents the right to explain away any consensus
>against ID among those same scientists as due to the fact that in this
>matter they do not really know what they are talking about. What's sauce
>for the goose is sauce for the gander.
This would not be special pleading because evolutionary biologists are
likely to know a lot about the scientific evidence regarding evolution and
very little about philosophy. However, it is also untrue because lots of
evolutionary biologists reject the claims of Dawkins et al. There is less
criticism of him than seems appropriate, but even some who may be
personally inclined to see evidence of mathematical randomness as support
for God's non-involvement oppose the claim that they are mutually
exclusive. Perhaps extremists such as militant atheists are generally more
noisy than most.
David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 14:47:07 EDT