In a message dated 2/22/00 11:11:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, Bertvan@aol.com
writes:
<<
Huxter:
>Mutations are, for all intents and purposes, random in nature.
Bertvan:
Hi Huxter, Do you believe children should be indoctrinated with your
sincere
belief that all mutations are random?
**** Why would you characterize my statement as a 'sincere belief'? What
'children' WOULD be 'indoctrinated' this? I was not aware that public school
biology goes into such detail. Certainly, when I took biology in high
school, 'mutations' were not even mentioned.
Or most mutations are random? What percentage? How do you prove
randomness? Maybe, like your "god of the gaps", randomness will have to
retreat as more mechanisms behind mutations are discovered .
***** Maybe. Maybe not. I suppose to appease folks like you we should just
go into class and say, "Gee - we really don't know EVERYTHING about
EVERYTHING, so we might as well say nothing. Go home now children, and ask
no questions, because since we do not know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING, any
answer I might give MIGHT be shown not exactly true at some point in the
future."
Bertvan:
>> 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.
Huxter
>***** How is that? Such a matter-of-fact claim must surely have some meat
>behind it. How do you propose that such a dogmatic belief, if it in fact
>exists, WOULD stifle research?
Bertvan:
No desire to prove it. It seems obvious to most of us that few scientists
would expend much effort looking for something they don't believe exists.
**** You mean like a supernatural entity responsible for everything from DNA
mutations to the creation of the universe? I thought you were agnostic? WHY
should they 'look for something they don't believe exists' when what DOES
exist can address most any question they might ask?
Non materialists wouldn't have much interest in doing abiogenesis research
and materialists would be uninterested in looking for mechanisms behind
mutations if they are convinced "random mutations" are capable of creating
everything. You disagree?
**** Yes, very much. In fact, YOU showed that this is not the case, did you
not? Did you not refer to an article in which there is evidence that certain
mutations ar enot random? WHO were the authors of that article? Were they
the 'shackled' materialists, or the 'open-minded' IDists?
Bertvan:
>>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.
Huxter:
>**** 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'?
Bertvan:
I'm sure many of us feel that only our own beliefs are worthy of passionate
defense. However I believe a wide diversity of belief and philosophy is
essential for any healthy, dynamic, creative endeavor. If materialists
sometimes try to stifle dissent with law suits, or by attacking the motives,
sincerity, intelligence and academic credentials of anyone who disagrees
with
them, such attacks are counterproductive. They stimulate those they attack
to greater effort, and are apparent to uncommitted observers.
**** Law suits that are raised, quite often, by OTHER religionists. Motives
are, obviously, an important consideration. If one is oath-bound to proclaim
the 'truth' of their convictions, does it not stand to reason that their
claims just might be suspect? Anti-evolutionists tend to see legitimate
questions on the ability of an individual to, for instance, discuss the
fossil record as an 'attack.' Poor Phil Johnson, the target of 'attacks' by
those mean evilutionists. Pointing out that he is alawyer, not a scientist.
Poinnting out that he is a member of an organisation committed to inflicting
a specific religious doctrine into the public arena. How terrible to point
these things out! Yet, would not Johnson do the same in HIS actual 'arena' -
a courtroom? Is it not common practice in Johnson's arena to 'attack' the
credentials of an opposing 'expert'? Why would it be ok for someone like
Johnson to do so in court, but a sign of 'desperation' when done in the
realm of science? What you see as 'stifling dissent' is more like preventing
pseudoscientific religious doctine from form being forced on captive
audiences. Do you consider it the 'stifling of dissent' to prevent astrology
from being 'taught' in public schools? How about the teaching of Native
American creation myths? Hindu? Why is it only the 'stifling of dissent'
when the 'dissenters' happen to subscribe to a certian religious creed to one
extent of another?
Bertvan
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 22 2000 - 12:11:38 EST