Bertvan@aol.com writes
in message <a4.1a62aa1.25faa90b@aol.com>:
> Subj: Re: Marxism and Darwinism
>
> Ted:
> > Materialists see most forms of creationism as a step backwards--
> > as regress rather than progress, superstition rather than science.
> > Fearing *belief in* creationism is no different then fearing
> > belief in astrology, or belief in witchcraft.
>
> Bertvan
> Hi Ted. I, personally, don't "fear" belief in astrology,
> witchcraft or anything else. I can't believe such ideas are
> much of a threat to anyone at the moment. I never "feared"
> belief in communism. Beliefs damage no one. Actions, including
> attempts to suppress freedom of ideas, do.
Ted:
No. As James eloquently puts it "faith without works is dead".
Belief inexorably leads to action or it is empty and meaningless.
Suppression of beliefs is, of course, a red herring. The kinds
of beliefs that materialists don't like thrive in ignorance and
disappear in the light of knowledge. (I don't mean to characterize
all ID as that kind of belief, though.)
<snip>
> Ted:
> > Why not acknowledge that natural mechanisms appear to result
> > in infinitely complex design and let everyone come to their
> > own conclusions about the origin of natural mechanisms (in
> > the absence of evidence)?
>
> Bertvan:
> The "evidence" is available to us all. We interpret it differently.
Then why hint that any agreement is possible? You seem to
be calling for some kind of... truce (?) between materialists
and non-materalists but want materialists to first adopt
non-materialistic assumptions?
> Materialists are entitled to their interpretation. Anything I
> say is merely in support of those expressing what I see as a
> minority view, not any attempt to change the beliefs of some
> materialist. Conflict of ideas is part of a healthy culture.
> Lack of conflict would ensure stagnation.
Ignorance should never be encouraged. For example, I'm quite
a bit uncomfortable with the idea of white-supremacist communes
out there not only shielding children from the truth about
racial equality but teaching lies. (I'm not sure of a politically
workable solution to that that problem, however.)
> If science is going
> to declare that only materialistic interpretations are scientific,
> such a position should be made clear. Non materialists would
> then feel free to "take science with a grain of salt". The
> problem might be that not all scientists are dedicated materialists.
> Many physicists have come to terms with a quantum universe.
> Would you boycott all non materialists from debate in scientific
> publications, and insist they pursue careers elsewhere? Or can
> you accept a legitimate difference of opinion about the existence
> of Design?
I can't understand what you're saying in any meaningful sense
without knowing what you mean by non-materialism. Most people
agree that science can only work under materialistic assumptions.
This, however, says absolutely nothing about those who can practice
it correctly. Rejection of a submission by a scientific journal
because of the religious beliefs of the author rarely, if ever,
occurs except in poorly documented anecdotes.
The issue of legitimate differences of opinion leads to a big
question. What is legitimate and who decides?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 10 2000 - 19:35:49 EST