Hi Richard, you wrote:
>I don't reject their work because of their religious beliefs, ( Behe and
Dembski)
>I reject it because it's wrong. However it's clear to me that the reason
>such deeply flawed theories are proposed by highly educated people
> who should no better, and receive so much support, is because of
>their religious significance.
Bertvan:
Remember what a humble fellow you were a little over a week ago? You have
progressed in that short time. Then, you hadn't heard an explanation of a
progressive creationist position. Now, you understand such explanations so
well you can state categorically they are wrong! A week ago you couldn't
rule out the possibility you might change your mind about God. Today, you
are convinced the only reason Behe and Dembski try to impose their scientific
ideas upon the public is for some secret agenda of imposing God upon society
- a God about which you are now certain you are not going to change your
mind. A week ago, you accepted theories of evolution mainly because you
trusted the experts. This week you are confident in deciding which experts
are wrong. (Behe and Dembski do have degrees in their respective fields.) A
week ago you found the evidence for evolution "persuasive". This week you
know it to be unquestionable "fact", and anyone such as Behe and Dembski who
challenge aspects of evolution are not only WRONG, but have ulterior motives
in doing so. So you can remember on how far you've come in a week, I include
excerpts from a former post.
Richard:
>At one time I called myself an agnostic, when I hadn't made up my mind
>on the issue. Now I've made up my mind that there is no God, but I don't
>totally rule out the possibility of changing my mind in the future!
>First of all, my main reason for accepting the theory of evolution is
>that it has the overwhelming support of the scientific community,
>particularly those scientists working in relevant fields such as biology and
>paleontology.
>I imagine some readers may dismiss this as an appeal to authority. But
>the fact is few of us have the time, inclination and ability to study all
>the evidence for ourselves, and so we have to place a certain amount of
>trust in the experts, not individually, since they are fallible human beings,
>but as a community.
>I can at least say of the theory of evolution that I broadly understand
>it, find it intuitively reasonable, have read a moderate amount about the
>evidence for it, and find the evidence very persuasive.
>The only OEC position that I have any familiarity with is that of Hugh
>Ross, and I do consider that to be pseudoscience. I haven't yet come across
an
>explanation of the progressive creationist position, so I won't comment
>on that.
Bertvan:
I have to confess, Richard, that I don't enjoy discussions with people to
question my motives. If you question Behe's and Dembski's motives, you must
surely question mine. Good luck. I hope you succeed in evading all that
religion Behe and Dembski are trying to impose upon you.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 19:05:38 EST