At 07:00 PM 3/21/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Susan:
>>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.
Physicists are scientists like any other. They can only see what they see. I
have a couple of friends who are physicists and I don't recall them saying
they could detect "mind" or "God" in an empirical way.
>Chemist Prigogine's self-organization isn't really a
>materialist concept.
why not?
>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?)
they aren't doing what you think they are doing. For example, Behe doesn't
agree with you about mutation and natural selection. He's a microbiologist
and has seen those things. And his "some god did it" hypothesis has been
thoroughly debunked. He can believe it all he wants to, but he can't
demonstrate it to the satisfaction of his peers.
>>>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.
yes. Except in the case of evolutionary biology whether it truely is random
or not really doesn't make a difference to evolution (descent with
modification, change in a gene pool over time). Everyone is perfectly free
to have an opinion about whether or not the gods make it rain. Everyone is
*not* perfectly free to have just any old opinion about whether or not it
rains sometimes. If you say "in my opinion it never rains" and the opinion
of everyone else on the earth is that it sometimes rains, at *best* you are
going to be thought a nut. It's not really *necessary*, I suppose, that
one's personal reality be verifiable with the rest of the world, but *I*
would rather mine be, and science isn't doesn't work any other way.
>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?
did I say that? I thought what I wrote was: "the changes have been observed
in realtime and in the fossil record--the hypothesis of natural selection
has been *verified*" Yep, I'm pretty sure I wrote that. Natural selection
can be observed to happen in the present. Long term change can be observed
in the fossil record.
>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?
of course! There's no way to verify that some god or other is pushing
evolution around by tweaking mutations.
>Susan:
>> 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!
that the biblical literalists have won you over is only a testamony to the
power of propaganda. I've heard atheist people say "well, *all* theories of
evolution should be discussed in science class" because they don't know the
only other one is creationism. They've been told there are "lots" of
evolutionary theories and believe it.
>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.)
I think you are being untruthful when you say you don't want to persuade
others to your viewpoint. I think if that were actually true you would never
have subscribed to this list. I also don't really trust your agnosticism.
You want *somebody* to be in control of "it all." *Who* pray tell? White
Buffalo Calf Woman? the little green guys from outer space?
>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?
yep!
>Since you
>question the sincerity of anyone who disagrees with you, we could never have
>a real discussion, could we?
why not? what does that have to do with anything? Get a grip. *You* are not
Philip Johnson, you are not Behe, and you are not Dembski.
>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.
look up "auto da fe" in the dictionary. There was a time when you could die
for expressing an idea that the biblical literalists didn't like. Christians
always used to have a lot of political power. For more than 1500 years they
had the force of government behind them. They are accustomed to it and they
long for those days to return. Try a web search for "Christian
Reconstructionism."
>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.
oh, I think there's a topic or two that's not RM&NS and still not religious
dogma. :-)
I think Intelligent Design is religious dogma. It's the old creationism in a
new sheep's clothing.
>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.
What do you think this is, if not open discussion? What do you think they
are having now in Kansas and elsewhere if not open discussion? Philosophy
and religion have nothing to do with science. Only the religionists (and a
few others) think it does. Religious and philosophical discussions can take
place freely in comparative religion classes or philosophy classes, but
religious dogma has no place in science classes.
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 20:53:28 EST