Rich:
>Indeed. One can think of any number of alternatives to evolution that an
>atheist *might* believe. An atheist might believe, for example, that the
>species just popped into existence from nowhere. An atheist might believe
>that he is the only conscious entity to exist, that he has always existed
>(but has a bad memory), and that everything he experiences is an illusion.
>An atheist's beliefs don't *have* to be rational and well-informed, any more
>than a theist's do.
>I would say that any rational, well-informed person, whether atheist *or*
>theist, has no choice but to believe in evolution.
>Stephen's point is a red herring anyway (surprise, surprise!). Most atheists
>become atheists as a result (in part) of accepting evolution; not
>the other way around.
Hi Richard,
This is quite an admission if true. (That most atheists become atheists as a
result of accepting evolution.) . Actually, I would correct the statement to
say people become atheists "as a result of accepting Darwinism". Stephen,
and most proponents of ID, accept "evolution" as some probable form of common
descent. Random mutation and natural selection as the mechanism of creative
change in organisms is what most "critics of evolution" challenge. Richard's
admission seems to verify the accusation that belief in atheism is a
requirement for belief in Darwinism.
If I had lived at a time when religion had power over what science could
investigate, I would have resented that power. Similarly, I now resent the
power of atheism to define science, by stating nature is a strictly
naturalistic process. No one knows whether or not nature is strictly a
naturalistic process. Chris seems to think his speculations about an
infinite universe or multiple universes is more rational than speculations
about God or gods. Even if his speculations were the more rational, they
would be no more likely to be verified. If nature is the result of a design,
knowledge about the nature of the designer will remain illusive. What
possible reason could anyone have for this on-going emotional objection to
the concept of ID-other than religious objections? Darwinists appear to
object to any concept that allows the possibility of anything beyond
naturalism. Denial of all teleology is a tenet of Darwinism. If design
exists, the function of science should be to try to figure out as many of the
details of that design as possible. There should be room in science for both
materialists and those of us who suspect there is more to reality than will
ever be described naturalistically.
If some theists somehow manage to convince themselves that a view of nature
as being the result of a series of random events, devoid of all purpose, is
compatible with theism, I have no objection--as long as they weren't coerced
into such a belief.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 12:14:29 EDT