In a message dated 2/21/00 9:21:30 PM !!!First Boot!!!, Bertvan@aol.com
writes:
<<
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.
**** You can claim that all you want to - but is it correct? Mutations are,
for all intents and purposes, random in nature. There are certainly
constraints on this, (i.e.,physical ), but that certainly is not equivalent
to saying 'God did it.'
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.
***** How is that? Such a matter-of-fact claim must surely have some meat
behind it. How do you propose that sucha dogmatic belief, if it in fact
exists, WOULD stifle research? It seems to me that those accepting that
'dogma' have produced far more productive research than those opposed to it.
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.
**** Why do you think that such a 'dogma' might be 'passionately defended' by
biologists? Could it be that no alternative explanations are worthy of their
'passion'?
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 .
**** Most of what design hypothesists say is an admission of ignorance.
Evolution is based on what we DO know, ID/creationsim on what we DON'T.
Scientists following an ID philosophy would look for everything to be a
functional piece of the design.
**** They would? Can you provide a ref for this?
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.
***** Thats a good one... "Prodded by design proponants..." Your
'predictions' are old news - the environment has long been known to influence
mutation. What is a 'rational' mutation?
And if mutations are not random, the mutations themselves create
biological novelty.
**** Random mutations can do the same.
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.
**** Persoanl doubts are fine, do you have any personal evidence?
Bertvan >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 21 2000 - 16:39:28 EST