Re: Academic thought police
Susan Brassfield (susan-brassfield@ou.edu)
Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:36:39 -0600>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.
and free love and atonal music! :-) and, of course, the antibiotics which
have kept so many of us alive and the computer upon which you wrote the
above paragraph
Those believing the universe is the result of some
>complex, rational design will look for more rational answers.
since you gave so many examples of the above case, could you give an
example or two of the more rational answers generated by design?
Susan
----------
"Life itself is the proper binge."
--Julia Child
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/