you should notice that I didn't say the *definition* of materialism is in
flux. You said materialists could pick and choose their evidence. The
implication was that science and materialism were identical. At least
that's how I took it. I was saying that science was forced to change itself
whenever the evidence required it. Have you ever seen a fractal? They are
beautiful. I think that the universe is a fractal, more or less, and we put
the meaning into it.
>Susan:
>>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.
>
>Bertvan:
>The universe looks too complex to me to be the result of a series of random
>accidents. I (as a non-materialist) doubt humans will ever understand
>everything,
so it looks designed to *you*. To *me* it looks like a fractal. :-) I also
don't think we'll ever understand *everything.*
>and the origin of the design is one of the things I'm not
>interested in speculating about. That doesn't mean I'm not fascinated by
>science's successes in learning details of the design. Creationists claim,
>"Darwinists don't know how evolution happened, so they say it must have been
>an accident, because that is the best materialist explanation they can think
>of."
how evolution happened has been pretty well understood for over 100 years.
Therefore I think you must be talking about abiogenesis here. The truth is,
if some middle eastern god created the first prokaryots ex nihlo with a
wave of his/her/its hand/pseudopod/appendage, there's good evidence that
things have been evolving ever since.
Both the Darwinists and the creationists cite ideas which seem
>incredible to them--"design" by the Darwinists, and "random accidents" by the
>creationists.
design isn't incredible. There's just no way to tell if you are seeing it
or not. It can't be defined or tested for. Therefore it's outside of what
science does. Even if the gene replication errors are "nudged" by a deity
(or whatever) it wouldn't change much about evolutionary biology.
>Susan:
>>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.
>
>Bertvan:
>Because a scientist says something and cites what he considers good evidence
>for it does not ensure it is some "eternal, absolute truth."
of course, not. I've been making that point over and over. Remember this?
"Not a single word, sentence, or comma may be added or subtracted from the
bible. It is utterly static. Science . . . is always in flux."
>When
>creationists offer their evidence, Darwinists sometimes claim it can't be
>legitimate evidence because it is offered by creationists--not scientists.
you are going to have to substantiate that claim. I was unaware that
creationists had any undisputed evidence. What are you referring to?
>If Darwinists' evidence is superior to that of creationists, it will prevail.
>There is no need to try to silence creationists.
who's trying to? There's always sunday school.
>Would you forbid anyone to question anything a
>scientist says about evolution? (Sometimes different scientists even say
>different things.) Would you specifically forbid religious people from
>expressing opinions about science?
No. And if I did, how would I manage it?
>Susan:
>>natural selection has been observed to occur, but that doesn't matter
>>because evolution is a rigid preconception?
>
>Bertvan:
>No, but some people's materialism can be rigid, in my opinion.
oh, heavens, I think Dawkins is an idiot because he tries to "prove"
atheism by using evolution. Some people's idiocy has no effect on the facts
one way or another.
>Natural
>Selection has been observed, but it has not been proven to be the cause of
>the major changes in organisms.
creationists like to think that there is some barrier between species. That
an organism can evolve only so much and no further. They have been asked
repeatedly to provide some evidence of this barrier. What stops an organism
from continuing to evolve? A new species of petunia looks a lot like the
parent species. A lot like, but different too. What keeps those slight
changes from accumulating over millions of years until there are so many
changes the descendant doesn't much resemble the ancestor? There are fossil
series (the whale, the horse, etc.) where one animal--through huge amounts
of time--gradually changes and changes until the descendants are something
completely else. That's hard evidence for macro-evolution. Natural
selection is good for each individual segment of the series--you say that
yourself. What keeps it from continuing to be good across large amounts of
time?
>Actually, Susan, I consider myself on the
>side of science, but I don't think science is well served by the bitterness
>of the current debate.
bitterness between you and me? (I hadn't seen that) or bitterness between
creationists and evolutionists? If the latter, I think it's because (a) the
creationists have done nothing but lose ground over the last 150 years and
they *really* don't like that and (b) the people for the evolutionist side
are hobbyists. Few evolutionary biologists get into this conversation at
all. It's fun (for me) when they do, but most of them consider it to be
beating a dead horse and don't bother. I totally enjoy the discussion and
don't care if the horse has truly breathed its last or not. :-)
Susan
-----------
Life is short, but it's also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/