:-) I was on a list once where I was constantly being called a
"naturalist." I *really* enjoyed that, though I quickly realized they meant
it disparagingly. Who is allowed to pick and choose their evidence? What
is, is. If something doesn't fit, then your ideas have to change--if you
are a scientist. Not a single word, sentence, or comma may be added or
subtracted from the bible. It is utterly static. Science (and materialism,
I guess) is always in flux.
>creationists free to see nature as designed
>--by God or by whatever. (Design theorists have evidence; it is evidence
>you don't accept. Nor should anyone try to compel you to do so.)
what, exactly *is* their evidence? and what is the criteria for deciding
something is designed? So far the only answer I've ever been able to get is
"it looks designed to *me*" or "well, I don't understand how it could
happen, so it must be designed." (Mr. Tyler has a version of that one in
his article on bacteria mutations.) That's really not enough for me.
>No
>philosophy should be considered more "scientific" than another, and none
>should be imposed upon school children (or anyone else) as ultimate
>"scientific" truth.
philosophy is one thing and scientific truth is quite another. No
scientific "truth" should be presented without a great deal of
substantiating evidence. Evidence is the key in the truth-value of any
scientific theory. Otherwise, why bother? Science is a method for getting
at the truth.
>I just re-read David Tylers excellent article, Strange
>Alliances. (When I get time, I'm going to read everything else he's written.)
I've read it also. There are some points in it I would like to reply to,
but I'll do that in another post.
> No one is going to "prove" any philosophy. There will always be narrow
>minded people who try to impose their beliefs on others by verbal abuse and
>denunciation. I hate when it is done in the name of science.
so do I
>>the mutator may then spread with the advantageous gene, a phenomenon >called
>the hitchhiking effect. "
>>How do you suppose this occurs?
>
>Bertvan:
>Any speculation I might make would be worthless. I'll leave it to the
>microbiologists. I started to say, " hopefully not ones determined to fit
>the evidence into some rigid preconception," but that would be wrong.
natural selection has been observed to occur, but that doesn't matter
because evolution is a rigid preconception?
> I know which answers I wish they would find. I'd like to see evidence for
>some sort of Lamarckism--mutations influenced by use. I'd like to believe my
>decisions and actions, my personal growth, are a tiny part of the progress of
>evolution. However I will try to adjust my world view to whatever seems like
>objective results.
"progress" is an invention of the 19th century. It was thought that life
evolved from "lower" to "higer" and eventually to our wonderful selves, the
crown of creation. That is not the case. Evolution does not have a
direction in mind. Species evolve to meet a specific environmental
challenge (like bacteria that are being starved).
Susan
-----------
Life is short, but it's also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/