Academic thought police

Bertvan@aol.com
Sat, 19 Jun 1999 15:45:50 EDT

Pim:
>Common sense is not a very reliable indicator. As far as the evidence is
>concerned, what do you believe shows evidence of a complex design that could
>not have been 'accidental'?

Hi Pim,
Maybe you haven't found common sense to be reliable, but mine has turned out
to be quite dependable over the years. If "design" can't be tested, neither
can the concept that the universe is an accident. I imagine what will happen
is each scientist will choose his own assumptions. Those believing the
universe is an accident will continue to produce ideas such as "random
mutation and natural selection", "selfish genes", 95% of the genome being
junk, genetic determinism, Marxism, Freudianism, lack of free will, belief
that mind is a merely complex computer called "brain", abiogenesis,
sociobiology, multiple universes, belief that macro evolution is merely lots
of micro evolution, etc. Those believing the universe is the result of some
complex, rational design will look for more rational answers.

Pim:
>But how can one accept something in science that does not contribute
anything >to it?

Bertvan:
I assume design would contribute nothing to your thinking. I suggest you not
accept it.

Bertvan