Hi Huxter,
I do not indulge in speculations about God. I am an agnostic. I merely
argue that when creationists claim God is the designer of mutations, they are
on as firm a ground as materialists who insist mutations are random.
Materialists complain that ID proponents would stifle scientific research, by
attributing phenomena to God, rather than search of other explanation.
Materialists have stifled scientific research for a over a century by
insisting mutations must be random. Since "random mutation and natural
selection as an explanation of macro evolution" became a passionately
defended dogma of materialist philosophy, biologists have discouraged any
search for other explanations. They have dogmatically announced that all
forms of Lamarckism "have been discredited". Proponents of ID, on the
other hand, are reluctant to accept anything in nature as "random.
"Random" is merely an admission of ignorance of the process, according to
Design theorists . Scientists following an ID philosophy would look for
everything to be a functional piece of the design. Prodded by design
proponents, more scientists are now looking for explanations other than
"random", and I predict they will find examples of "use" or "the
environment" exerting positive pressure for "rational" mutations. And if
mutations are not random, the mutations themselves create biological novelty.
Natural selection, also part of the design, would perform the function of
eliminating "design errors", but I personally doubt Natural Selection is
capable of "creating" anything.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 21 2000 - 16:20:42 EST