then why are you on a discussion list designed specifically for
creation/evolution?
>There could be
>scientific explanations which would not be incompatible with a belief that
>the laws of nature are designed.
you have not shown how it *could* be possible. I think you think science is
supposed to accept it because somebody suggested it.
>Not necessarily confirming design--but
>merely not denying the POSSIBILITY of design.
in any of my posts have I denyed the possibility of design? Haven't I even
conceded design, at least hypothetically?
>Such explanations would
>satisfy many so-called creationists. Actually, I believe science will
>eventually realize they cannot legitimately make any statement about the
>existence or non existence of design, and will come up with something which
>does not deny anyone's philosophy. (It won't be "random mutation and natural
>selection", which specifically denies any possibility of design.)
actually it does not. No more than the existence of a tree denies the
existence of a car. I'll say it again. If design were 100% true, it would
have no effect on the workings of science in any way. Design is undetectible
by science. You, yourself, can propose no way that science can detect design.
>(How many times did I hear "Lamarck has been
>refuted"!!!!) Now, finally, some microbiologists are looking for directed
>mutations and finding them.
what they are doing in no way resembles what Lamarck proposed. Lamarkianism
has been a dead issue for almost 200 years.
> This debate which is occurring on the internet is not much about science,
>but mostly about religion.
of course! at bottom the whole thing is about forcing a particular religious
mythology into government funded schools. I'm against it.
>Atheists against any type of religion.
freedom *of* religion, necessarliy entails freedom *from* religion
>atheists I've met on the internet seem unpleasant, arrogant and sarcastic.
>I have one question for you:
I agree, but they usually don't check with me before they say stupid stuff.
I am sort of an atheist with a twist, you might want to check the
"spirituality" section of my web page.
>Would you like to reach some accommodation with "creationists" or do you
>enjoy doing battle with them too much to give it up?
I enjoy the battle tremendously. I enjoy biology, anthropology, geology,
paleontology tremendously. I *love* reading about and researching this
stuff. I would be happy for anybody to believe any damn thing they want
to--heck, I supported the right of the Santaria to slaughter chickens in
their rites and I'm a vegetarian!--but Church and State must never mix.
There can never be a government religion. And that is what creationism and
all its permutations is--an attempt to set up Christianity as a government
religion via the public schools. If it ever becomes legal to teach Christian
myths in science class, I will personally collect all the creation myths
that ever were and go on a campaign to have *them* taught as science also.
There is as much hard scientific data that the Great Sky Lizard defecated
the Universe on the back porch of Heaven as there is for the Genesis account
(or Intelligent Design, for that matter).
I think that anyone on this list who thinks that science is specifically
opposed to "God" or any mythology should not bother to read science--it
won't convince you. Read mythology. ALL mythology, not just that of Europe
and the Middle East..
Susan
--------
Life is short, but it is also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb