Re: Evolution archive list

Chris Cogan (ccogan@sfo.com)
Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:36:38 -0700

Bertvan:
>>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.

Susan:
>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.

Chris
Not to mention outside the scope of the scientific method.

Susan:
>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.

Chris
But *I* think she did! ;-)