Hi Chris,
We have read your arguments, Chris. They are well thought out. Those of us
who are skeptical of "random mutation and natural selection as an
explanation of macro evolution", simply don't find your arguments
compelling. People who believe in Design don't have to prove the concept to
you. Why should they? Most of them are perfectly willing to allow those
scientists with a materialistic philosophy to continue their research. I
wouldn't ridicule materialists, or rant against them as "pseudo scientists".
I wouldn't try to discourage anyone from working on abiogenesis for as many
centuries as they care to do so. I don't believe computers will ever even
approximate the human mind, but I wouldn't try to discourage anyone who
wished to work on AI. Why should you care that some scientists see the
universe as the result of complex design? If some scientists see purpose in
nature, why is it important to you to argue them out of it? You claim to be
an atheist. I don't see anyone trying to change your belief. Why do you get
so worked up over other people's religious and philosophical beliefs? Do you
believe only those people with a materialistic philosophy should be allowed
to be scientists? That is how it appears to uncommitted witnesses of this
debate. I visited an evolutionist/creationist site, which I hadn't read for
some time. No creationists there any more. Just a bunch of Darwinists
sitting around ranting to each other about how stupid creationists are. As
Design is accepted as a possibility by more and more scientists, I suspect
materialists will find themselves ignored. Unless they can come to terms
with such genuine differences of opinion. Let's wait and see which
philosophy produces the most results.
Bertvan