>Hi Susan,
>Is it possible you and I might find areas of agreement?
almost anything is possible!
>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.
I don't think you understood the topic I was discussing. The above response
doesn not speak to it. Science *must* have a materialist assumption behind
it. That doesn't mean that individual scientists *must* be materialists.
Polls show that most are, but not a vast majority. I"m not talking about
"defining" reality. That's the work of philosophers. I'm talking about
discovering what is actually *in* reality. I have a high degree of
confidience that the keyboard I'm typing on exists in reality. If I doubt
that (maybe I'm schizophrenic, maybe I'm dreaming) I can get *verification*
from people around me. IT's not a perfect system for discovering reality,
but it's about the best we have.
Science needs to be *verified*. Religion doesn't need verification, in fact
you are never supposed to ask for verification.
>Some people are probably convinced everyone who
>disagrees with their personal philosophy are "attempting to conceal reality
>from themselves and their children".
you twisted what I actually said. Try reading what I wrote.
>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".
When a drought occurs which kills all but a few drought-resistant organisms
natural slection has happened. The drought is random (unless the gods did
it). The same is for a population that gets cut off from its food supply by
an earthquake, causing a natural selection event. The earthquake is random
(unless the gods did it). And so on.
>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.
the changes have been observed in realtime and in the fossil record--the
hypothesis of natural selection has been *verified*
This verification is what some creationists wish concealed from themselves
and the public.
>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.
it has never really mattered one way or the other if mutations are random.
They appear to be random. If they are guided by the gods, science can't
detect it.
>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.
The only reason to question the enormous body of evidence for evolution is
Biblical Literalism. In counteries without fundamentalists and biblical
literalists this is not even a viable conversation. Whether or not the
above list wishes to cop to the biblical literalism that underlies all
anti-evolutionism is of no importance to me. Many of the above people hold
to ideas that have been exposed as utterly false and still argue in their
favor. They are doing it for religious reasons.
>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.
Darwin's contribution was "descent with modification" and he proposed that
natural selection was the mechanism. Research in the last 150 years has
verified his observations and born him out.
> 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".
That is a true assumption The Discovery Institute and the Creation Research
Institute, Answers in Genesis, etc. all make no effort to conceal their
biblical literalism.
>Whether the evidence for
>Darwinism is meager or consists of "tons of evidence" is open to
>interpretation.
no it's not. It's either there or it isn't.
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.
I am concerned that Christian biblical literalists will try to get their
religious dogma taught as science in public schools to Budhist, Jewish,
Muslim and atheist kids. I only want *science* taught in science class.
Leave the religion in the churches.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 15:31:37 EST