----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 13:00:35 EDT
From: Bertvan@aol.com
Subject: "Scientific" position on philosophical questions
Bertvan:
>>There may not be a way to "prove scientifically" that nature is the result
>>of rational design, rather than random processes. I could suggest the
"burden
>>of proof" lies with those who claim obvious appearances are really an
>>illusion.
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?
Hi Chris,
You seem to be urging me to offer some evidence or argument to challenge your
belief in an accidental universe. Why on earth would I want to do that? You
seem to believe in a random, accidental universe, are an atheist, and believe
free will is ultimately an illusion. "Random mutation and natural selection"
as an explanation of evolution is a logical conclusion for anyone with such
beliefs. It is a consistent position, and you seem content with 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. There is no "scientific position" on the existence or non
existence of god. There is no scientific position on whether the laws of
nature are the result of random processes or the result of rational design.
That doesn't mean on 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).
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. The truth is, even Young Earth Creationists pose no danger to
science. A belief in alien abductions poses no danger to science. 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".
Bertvan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 11:48:57 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: "Scientific" position on philosophical questions
Bertvan: You seem to be urging me to offer some evidence or argument to =
challenge your=20
belief in an accidental universe. Why on earth would I want to do that? =
You=20
seem to believe in a random, accidental universe, are an atheist, and =
believe=20
free will is ultimately an illusion. "Random mutation and natural =
selection"=20
as an explanation of evolution is a logical conclusion for anyone with =
such=20
beliefs. =20
You are now confusing beliefs and science. If you want to claim =
scientifically that there is an intelligent
designer, after all that is the goal of the ID movement?, then you have =
to show why your hypothesis is
better than the far simpler and elegant hypothesis. You have to show how =
it explains better the observations and how it is a better hypothesis.
Bertvan: It is a consistent position, and you seem content with it. My =
only=20
objection to any of it is when someone tries to impose it upon others =
by=20
such intimidating tactics as declaring theirs is the only "scientific"=20
position.=20
So far it seems that it is.
Bertvan: There is no "scientific position" on the existence or non=20
existence of god.
Very good, so why address it then?
Bertvan: There is no scientific position on whether the laws of=20
nature are the result of random processes or the result of rational =
design.
So why complicate it then by adding something that cannot be addressed =
scientifically.
Bertvan: When I first read Johnson and Denton, I thought, "How nice! =
Someone finally=20
expressed some of the things I've always believed." I probably =
disagreed=20
with both about religion, but then I'm used to holding minority =
opinions. I=20
never became emotionally in the controversy until I saw that any =
challenge to=20
the most orthodox of Darwinism was met by bitter personal attacks upon =
such=20
challengers.
Bitter personal attacks? Or was it attacks on the flawed science and =
arguments of Johnson?
Bertvan: The truth is, even Young Earth Creationists pose no danger to =
science.=20
They do as long as they insist that their "science" should be included =
as science.
Bertvan: A belief in alien abductions poses no danger to science. The =
only=20
danger to science would lie in a passionate defense of some orthodox =
theory=20
because it fit the philosophical position of some vocal "defenders of=20
science"
There is no inherent danger in defending an "orthodox" theory, there is =
obvious danger in allowing religious belief and faith to dictate =
science. That's why YEC does pose a danger to science.