Brian:
>So, let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean
>what you say. With this in mind, I would invite you to take a
>look at your posts, inspect them objectively to see whether
>or not you are judging others according to their (perceived) motives.
Bertvan:
I try. If I am guilty of judging anyone's ideas according to their perceived
motives, I regret it, and can only say I am the loser if I'm fail to remain
objective.
Bertvan:
>>Would you have been satisfied if the Kansas school board had said the
>>following?
>>
>>"Macro evolution is a mysterious process which no one has completely
>>explained. All life forms appear to be somehow related, and most scientists
>>believe that relationship is due to common ancestry. How many common
>>ancestors (1? 2? 5? 10? 100?) is sometimes debated. The process by which
one
>>organism could acquire completely novel complex organisms and body parts,
and
>>might change into an entirely different organism is still seeking
>>explanation."
Brian:
>Nevertheless, I can
>go ahead and give my suggestions for additions/improvements about what you
>wrote:
>1) I see no reason to say its mysterious.
Bertvan:
As far as I'm concerned the explanation of macro evolution is unknown. To me
the unknown is deeply mysterious. If you disagree, and find my slightly
colorful language offensive, surely you can't mean it shows lack of
objectivity?
>Brian:
>2) You should say that organisms *are* (not appear to be) related. You
>could then explain what that relatedness entails, homologous structures
> etc. Then go on to say that practically all scientists agree that this
relatedness
>is due to descent with modification. It might be good to emphasize at this
point
>that scientists seldom agree universally about anything :).
Bertvan:
I agree. Organisms are related, and most scientists believe it is due common
descent. I didn't include all the arguments for common descent. I also
didn't include arguments theories such as panspermia, which suggest
relatedness might be due to horizontal transfer. I didn't include arguments
that similarities are eveloid - evidence of the universal nature of design
elements in nature.
Brain:
>3) As to your last sentence, this is, IMHO, misinformation. It seems to me
>that what you
>are really saying is that there is no theory of evolution. Well,
>at least you're consistent :).
>This is, after all, the implication of discussing evolution only
>in terms of micro evolution.
> Micro evolution is, after all, something that almost all
>creationists accept.
Bertvan:
I'm not sure what you mean here. The theory of micro evolution is rarely
questioned by anyone. I don't see it as a "unifying concept of science".
There seem to be many theories of macro evolution: "Random mutation and
natural selection", "saltationism", "horizontal transfer". "some unknown
ability of DNA to create complexity" (hard to resist the word mysterious
here), "directed mutation or neo Lamarckism". I could name others, but do
you really want me to?
Bertvan:
>>How could they "teach" macro evolution, if they don't know how it occurred?
Brain:
>They can start by giving the overwhelming evidence that macro evolution has
>occurred.
>Then they could mention that several theories have been proposed to account
>for this accumulated evidence. Probably most time would be spent on
>Darwin's theory.
Bertvan:
Hey, that would suit me. It would surely satisfy ID theorists. I was under
the impression most Darwinists in this discussion group would be ready to
pounce upon anyone who mentioned anything but Darwinism in a science class.
Bertvan
>>How can you call an unknown "a unifying theory"?
Brian:
It is not unknown and it *is* a unifying theory.
Bertvan:
So an explanation of macro evolution IS known? Which one? Or are you
insisting there is only one?
>>Bertvan:
>>I thought this was a place where we discussed ideas, rather than use words
>>like "tirade".
Brian:
>So did I, so how do explain your behavior then?
Bertvan:
I wish you'd spell out my unacceptable behavior a little more specifically.
Bertvan; (in regard to Millers criticism of the Kansas school board)
>>Rather than state his
>>specific objections, he uses words such as "ghost written", "terrible",
>>"lack of understanding of the nature of science" (Miller's personal
>>understanding, I presume), "egregious", "errors of fact", "misrepresentation
>>,"things are a mess", and "an embarrassment to Christians". I believe Ken
>>Miller is committed to a materialist explanation of life. (His privilege)
>.>Nevertheless, if Miller had voiced specific examples of these "errors of
>>fact", I would have tried to give them my unbiased consideration.
>>Bertvan
Brain:
>Here is an example of what I was talking about. You jump to a conclusion
>without evidence. Why? Is it because you are trying to "explain" his
>opposition in terms of his commitment to materialism. This is classical
>circumstantial _ad-hominem_.
Bertvan:
What conclusion did I jump to? I merely stated I can not judge Miller's
criticisms of the Kansas school board unless he (or you) are more specific
than "things are a mess".
Brian:
>Did you consider the possibility that there is documentation for what Miller
>wrote? Again, I'm surprised that these things seem new to you.
Bertvan:
Sure I consider it. If you or he present such documentation, I'll try to
give it unbiased consideration. So far I've seen nothing from Miller but
terms such as "things are a mess". You regard it an ad-hominem attack for me
to state that is all I've seen? I admit I'm not likely expend much energy
seeking out opinions and "documentations" by people with whom I disagree. I
don't spend much time looking for stuff written by Young Earth Creationists.
But if something is presented to me I try to consider it without bias.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 17 2000 - 20:00:24 EST