actually I've always been rather pleased with the cordial tone of the
discussion on this list. Has someone on this list been abusive to you? The
only person I can recall being openly abusive was "Paracelcus" and he was a
creationist. People here are certainly taking exception to your *ideas* but
it is your ideas under attack, not you.
If you say "random mutation and natural selection is bunk" on a list such
as this, you will be expected to defend the statement with evidence or
logic and preferably both. People such as myself will certainly try to
bring evidence or logic to bear in proving that your statement is
incorrect. However, that is not a personal attack on you. I'm not sure you
entirely understand that.
Perhaps you can repost some specific instances of abuse and we can discuss
them.
>Susan:
>>you have not shown how [design] *could* be possible. I think you think
>>science is
>>supposed to accept it because somebody suggested it.
>
>Bertvan:
>Nor have atheists shown design is *not* possible. And stating whether design
>is possible or not possible is not within the realm of science.
Your last statement is exactly true. So why try to force science to do
something it can't do? What's the point? Without a religious
agenda--specifically a Christian religious agenda--there *is* no point.
>Susan:
>>in any of my posts have I denied the possibility of design? Haven't I even
>>conceded design, at least hypothetically?
>
>Bertvan:
>Fair enough. And I don't want any religion imposed upon me, including
>atheism in the form of "random mutation and natural selection". An
>accidental universe--one without plan purpose or design-- is synonymous with
>atheism.
not really. And nothing is imposed on anybody. Remember? Freedom of
religion and freedom *from* religion? Gravity is imposed on everyone
because gravity exists. If you drop something it will hit the ground.
Everyone has seen that happen. Evolution (natural selection, etc.) is
vastly more complex and tougher to observe. But it *has* been observed.
Now, whether or not someone is guiding that evolution or is *in charge* of
what mutations happen or what traits get selected for, simply CANNOT be
observed. It can be believed, it can be an article of faith, but even you
have admitted it cannot be observed. It is religion, not science and you
are perfectly free to believe it or not. In fact the Constitution defends
your right to believe it.
>Susan:
>>of course! at bottom the whole thing is about forcing a particular religious
>>mythology into government funded schools. I'm against it.
>>freedom *of* religion, necessarily entails freedom *from* religion
>
>Bertvan:
>I feel the same way about forcing atheism upon government funded schools in
>the form of "random mutation and natural selection."
schools need to be free to report scientific observations and "random
mutation and natural selection" have been observed to occur. Being forced
to conceal the fact that those observations have been made is religious
oppression.
>I am not against
>science. I am against a science which insists upon an accidental universe,
>one without plan purpose or design--a science which insists upon atheism.
and has been pointed out to you often, science does not insist on theism
*or* atheism because that is outside what science does.
Susan
----------
"Life itself is the proper binge."
--Julia Child