Chris
You could suggest it, but since we're talking science and not subjective
opinions, it wouldn't wash. Could you AT LEAST tell us how things would have
to be if they're NOT designed? How would things either HAVE to be different,
or how would you EXPECT things to be different, and on the basis of WHAT
assumptions?
Bertvan
>However I see no reason to challenge anyone to prove the
>unprovable. I imagine what will happen is scientists of both view points
>will continue repeatable, measurable, scientific investigations. Those
>believing in random processes are probably satisfied with "random mutation
>and natural selection". Those believing in rational design will look for
>other mechanisms. The Gaia concept is an example. I can think of no way
>Gaia could have evolved by "random mutation and natural selection". (There
>is only one Gaia, right?)
Chris
Well, is there even ONE? If I understand the concept correctly, I'd say
there's not even one Gaia. However, if you mean overall evolution of life on
Earth, gradually filling all available niches, etc., then that's to be
expected on the basis of the basic principles of evolution: Variation and
culling.
Bertvan
>I have no idea of Lynn Margulis views on design,
>and in today's confrontational climate over design, she might be reluctant
to
>say, but she has been critical of "Darwinism". There are probably still
>scientists skeptical of the Gaia concept, and maybe you are one of them.
>Again I see no need to demand anyone prove it's validity or lack of
validity.
> The philosophical concept under which a scientist works influences where
he
>will look for answers, but the nuts and bolts of doing science is the same
>for all scientists. Can you live with the possibility that some scientists
>believe nature is the result of rational design, and judge their results
>scientifically--regardless of their philosophical beliefs?
Chris
I already DO live with that. :-)