Susan:
>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.
Bertvan:
Some scientists want to study ALL of reality. If mind, soul, God, free will,
consciousness, information, purpose or other non materialist phenomena exist,
they are part of reality. Physics and cosmology aren't so picky about what
they consider. Chemist Prigogine's self-organization isn't really a
materialist concept. Twentieth century biology might have insisted upon a
materialist assumption, but quite a few biologists are beginning to claim
they can do just fine without it. (You don't want their names again, do you?)
Susan:
>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:
Right!! Faith on the part of both the materialists and the non materialists.
Susan:
>the changes have been observed in realtime and in the fossil record--the
>hypothesis of natural selection has been *verified*
Bertvan:
So natural selection has been verified in the fossil record? Natural
selection has been verified as creating the biological novelty which changed
organisms into radically different species? Interesting!!
Susan:
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.
Bertvan:
"They appear random" is good enough for you?
Susan:
>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.
Bertvan:
Since you know of no reason to question Darwinism except biblical literalism,
no such reason can exist.
Good scientific thinking! No matter how often some of us state religion has
nothing to do with our skepticism of Darwinism, you claim we are being
untruthful? (I believe you actually use a stronger term.)
Even though the arguments of those scientists questioning "random mutation
and natural selection as an explanation of macro evolution" are devoid of any
biblical reference, they are still biblical literalists? Since you
question the sincerity of anyone who disagrees with you, we could never have
a real discussion, could we?
Bertvan:
>> 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".
Susan:
>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.
Bertvan:
There was a time when religion exerted some control over the expression of
ideas. That control was benign compared to the intolerant censorship
materialists such as yourself are advocating.
Susan:
>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.
Bertvan:
And you regard discussion of anything but "random mutation and natural
selection as an explanation of macro evolution" to be religious dogma. I'll
tell you a secret, Susan. Those children capable of making scientific
discoveries will make up their own minds about philosophy and religion,
regardless of whether it is discussed in science classes or elsewhere. Only
the confused fear open discussion.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 19:00:52 EST