Re: Evolution archive list

Susan Brassfield (susan-brassfield@ou.edu)
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:02:45 -0600

Bertvan wrote [to Brian]:
>
>Everyone is responsible for modifying their individual religion, world view
>or philosophy to be compatible with reality as they see it. Some Theists
>have apparently even successfully adapted to Darwinian Fundamentalism; others
>can't. For several centuries we have trusted science to define reality.
>What if people stopped trusting science? It was only recently that some
>official science organization deleted from their definition of evolution:
>
>"Evolution is a contingent, random process--without plan, meaning or purpose."

the "some official science organization" was a teacher's association. They
deleted it because it goes *way* beyond what scientists think.

>Some materialists expressed indignation at the deletion. However, no one can
>possibly know whether ANYTHING in nature is "random, without plan, meaning or
>purpose".

which is why it was deleted.

>If scientists make dogmatic statements about things they can't
>know, people might lose trust in them.

That's extremely unlikely. The close relationship between science and
technology--for which our culture is extremely hungry--will enable most
scientists to keep their jobs. Darwinism works. That's why it's still
around inspite of the objections of religionists. It's dangerous to take
antibiotics without a knowledge of Darwinism and virtually impossible to do
agriculture or medical research without a knowledge of how it works.

>Personally, I am suspicious of any
>biologist who offers an emotional defense of Darwinism (whatever Darwinism
>means). Some people claim they don't give a damn what the public
>thinks--those apparently more eager to "defeat" creationists, rather than
>find common ground for coexistence. You were disappointed that common ground
>wasn't a definition of methodological naturalism. I'm disappointed it isn't
>"design". No one can possibly know whether the universe was designed.
>Nevertheless, many defenders of Darwinism seem to regard "design" as another
>form of creationism--something to be attacked and stamped out.

some highly conservative Christians are vastly more interested in "stamping
out" science than vice versa, believe me. Science is not threatened by
religion, but a few people seem to think that science threatens religion.
The problems involved in trying to inject "design" into science are
manifold and have been covered in other e-mails. But to recap: (a) there's
no way to tell if something is designed or not (b) design implys a designer
and therefore a religious mythology of some kind or another which is
outside the perview of science.

It might be helpful to you to try and step outside our culture for a
moment. People who are pushing "design" (like Johnson, etc.) have a
particular designer in mind, a specific middle-easter god. They don't think
that White Buffalo Calf Woman "designed" DNA or the Milky Way.

Susan

-----------

Life is short, but it's also very wide.

http://www.telepath.com/susanb/