<<
HUXTER:
>And yet it is totally irrlevent to evolution. You may dislike the
materialist >philosophy. So what. Your (and Johnson's, etc.) does not make
it non-viable. >Nor does it have any bearing on whether or not evolution is
true. I fin that when >one tries to turn this into a philosophical debate,
it is because they have no >evidence on their side. Your refusal to address
the points of my previous post, >and instead your focusing on the
'philosophical' point bears witness to that.
Hi Huxter,
A materialist philosophy is as viable as a philosophy which includes
purpose,
plan and design. Anyone should be free to choose. If Darwinism is defined
as excluding plan, purpose or design, anyone should be free to be skeptical.
>>
NEW HUXTER:
What IS Darwinism? I believe that anti-evolutionists refer to evolution as
Darwinism so as to make it appear cultish - like scientists are following a
man's teachings (such as being a Moonie, or a Branch Davidian) rather than
adhering to a set of scientific tenets. When an antimaterialistic
supernaturalist claims that Design is the best answer, one must be skeptical,
since they have abandoned any hope of reaching a testable, observable, or
inferrable conclusion. Where does one go after Design is invoked? What more
can possibly be learnned, if the whim of a 'Designer' is at the heart of the
matter? What is to prevent this 'designer' from throwing a wrench in the
works to befoul our efforts? I see the so-called intelligent design movement
as a band of sad wishful thikers who, seeing that not all questions have an
answer RIGHT NOW, see an opportunity to inflict their baseless 'faith' into
the realm of science. At least as far as the lay public is concerned. If
All scientists had been of the same mentality as those in the design
mobvement throughout time, I am certain that we would still be living in
grass huts along river banks, content in our 'knowledge' that a 'designer'
made it rain.. made plants grow... made the sun shine... etc....