Hi Susan,
Is it possible you and I might find areas of agreement?
Susan:
>Science is an attempt, however flawed, to examine reality as
>objectively as possible. Although a lot of science is tentative
>and subject to change as new information is discovered, a lot
>of it is not. The attempts of conservative Christians to conceal
>reality from themselves and their children doesn't do
>them, their children or their religion any good.
Bertvan:
A materialist might define reality as consisting solely of matter and known
physical forces, and a non materialist might define reality as consisting of
something more. (mind, God, soul, free will, information, purpose, unknowns,
etc.) I doubt scientists are in unanimous agreement on a materialist
definition of reality. Some people are probably convinced everyone who
disagrees with their personal philosophy are "attempting to conceal reality
from themselves and their children".
Susan
>Natural selection happens. Whether it's random or directed by the gods is
>up for grabs and a matter of faith.
Bertvan:
I think most Darwinists would object to Natural Selection being
characterized as "random". It is supposedly the creative force that turns
random mutations into rational information and functioning biological
systems. Natural Selection happens. Whether it ensures stasis or creates
novelty is being debated.
Susan:
> The same is true of mutations. They
>happen. Sometimes they are beneficial and get selected for. Whether
>mutations are random or directed by the gods is up for grabs, but you can't
>deny that it happens any more than you can deny that natural selection
>happens. Life has a long history and species of plants and animals change
>through time. The evidence for that happening is so enormous that it can't
>be ignored. Whether or not history was guided by the gods in order to
>culminate in our wonderful selves is up for grabs, science can't address
>that.
Bertvan:
I don't know anyone who disagrees with evolution defined as "species of
plants and animals change
through time". I suspect now that scientists are breaking away from dogmatic
insistence that mutations must be random, science will achieve better
understanding of some of the mechanisms behind mutations.
Susan:
>The downfall of biblical literalists is that they are trying to address
>questions that they can't address. Johnson is making a smiliar mistake in
>trying to make science address questions it can't address. I've heard his
>common question about "what single piece of evidence for evolution was so
>compelling that it convinced you?" has reciprical question. "What would
>science look like with it's naturalistic assumptions removed?"
Bertvan:
Biblical literalists exist. I don't know any. I haven't noticed any on this
discussion board. Neither Behe, Johnson, Denton, Kenyon, Hoyle, Dembski,
Spetner, Margulis, Mike Gene, Steve Jones nor I are biblical literalists.
Most of us are skeptical of Darwinism. "Change in species over time" was
not Darwin's contribution to scientific thought. That was already commonly
accepted. Darwin's contribution was the idea that Natural Selection
gradually turns small mutations into rational biological systems and body
parts by the Darwinist mechanism of Natural Selection.
I am an observer of science, and can offer no scientific theories. My
interest in this subject is that the public seems under the impression that
only biblical literalists question "evolution". Many people on the other
side of this argument seem eager to convince the public that everyone who
questions Darwinism is a biblical literialist. Whether the evidence for
Darwinism is meager or consists of "tons of evidence" is open to
interpretation. Scientists will make those interpretations regardless of
your or my opinions on the matter. Like you, I am concerned about public
opinion and try to contribute my bit.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 14:29:20 EST