>You seem to be urging me to offer some evidence or argument to challenge
>your belief in an accidental universe.
I think that all of us who have been chatting with you would like for you to
offer some logical support for your assertion that "it" looks designed.
>Why on earth would I want to do that?
well. . . . this *is* a discussion list. You've been making pronouncements
about the basic character of the universe. The rest of us keep thinking
there's some kind of reasoning or logic behind it.
> My only
>objection to any of it is when someone tries to impose it upon others by
>such intimidating tactics as declaring theirs is the only "scientific"
>position.
that's intimidating? really?
>There is no "scientific position" on the existence or non existence of god.
no there is not. It's a matter of opinion.
>There is no scientific position on whether the laws of
>nature are the result of random processes or the result of rational design.
Science cannot speak to this matter one way or the other. Science only
examines nature. If it is designed, it is of no consequence, because there
is no way to tell one way or the other if the universe is designed. Design
is a matter of opinion. Science cannot hang on to an unsupported opinion for
very long and remain science. Clinging to an unsupported opinion is what
*religion* is all about, not science.
>That doesn't mean one position isn't closer to the truth, and those scientists
>with the most valid philosophy might be more successful unraveling nature's
>"design" (if one exists).
If design were 100% true, and Quetzequaltal *did* sit down with his copy of
Photoshop (v.0001) and generate the universe, it really doesn't matter.
Science can't detect it.
>When I first read Johnson and Denton, I thought, "How nice! Someone finally
>expressed some of the things I've always believed." I probably disagreed
>with both about religion, but then I'm used to holding minority opinions. I
>never became emotionally in the controversy until I saw that any challenge to
>the most orthodox of Darwinism was met by bitter personal attacks upon such
>challengers.
If, like now, you were making bald assertions and failing to even attempt to
support them with logic or evidence, then I have a feeling they *did* get
quite frustrated with you!
>The truth is, even Young Earth Creationists pose no danger to
>science.
quite true.
>A belief in alien abductions poses no danger to science.
again true
>The only
>danger to science would lie in a passionate defense of some orthodox theory
>because it fit the philosophical position of some vocal "defenders of
>science".
yes, if scientists ignored massive evidence to the contrary of the
orthodoxy, you would be correct. However, in the case of ID there is no
evidence at all, only opinion on the part of religionists, and (like yours)
completely unsuported opinion at that.
Susan
--------
Life is short, but it is also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb