Why assume a lie?

Bertvan@aol.com
Sun, 28 Nov 1999 13:37:27 EST

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....

Bertvan:
Many skeptics of "random mutation and natural selection as an explanation
for macro evolution" have claimed Darwinism was a moving target and wish
someone would define it. When materialists claim to have the "true"
explanation, one must be skeptical, since materialists have abandoned any
hope of achieving a more reasonable explanation which might include design.
Where does one go after Design is invoked? One tries to work out the details
of the design.

NEW HUXTER:
>WHY does one have to 'believe in' design to find this mysterious plan
>or purpose? You are delving into metaphysics and philosophy again.
>How is one to find 'plan' or 'purpose' by examining empirical evidence?

Bertvan:
One doen't have to believe in design to figure out the details of the design,
but I suspect it might help.

NEW HUXTER: wrote concerning micro evolution and macro evolution:
>Actually, it isn't even that. It is merely descent from a parent stock.
> What it IS, is the testing of the methodology of using DNA sequence
>data to glean information on relationships. There have numerous
>such tests - the above is but one example. If the methodology works
>for small scale issues like this What is the rationale for assuming
>that it fails for more 'diffiicult' problems? Not a SINGLE
>anti-evolutionist has been able to provide a rational, reasonable argument.

Bertvan:
The rationale for assuming something true in one situation is universally
true is the same for assuming the mechanisms might be different. Both are
assumptions.

BV:
>>I am not a scientist, but I can even think of a few myself. I hope
>>>cientists who believe design and purpose to be a part of nature are
thinking
>>of others.

NEW HUXTER:
Well, lets hear them. It would be a switch from the usual 'you
philosophy is flawed' fluff we hear so often.

Bertvan
Any of my speculations would be similar to just-so stories. I find the work
of Kauffman, Margulis, Spetner, Shapiro, panspermia, Behe, and Denton all
interesting. (If you want to have discussions with me, and I can't imagine
why you do, you'll have to speak politely.)
Bertvan