Re: Academic thought police
Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:39:04 -0500At 03:45 PM 6/19/99 EDT, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
> Hi Pim,
{snip}
>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.
Do you mean to imply that these are incompatible with the notion of design?
I second Howard Van Till's request that design be better defined.
Steve