Chris:
>Neither am *I* trying to impose my belief in naturalism on anyone, so this
>alleged "difference" is nonexistent. And, as far as I can tell, he (Stephen)
does
>*not* acknowledge that his beliefs are unproven, except perhaps his belief
>in ID theory. Why do you claim I am, when I have specifically and
>explicitly condemned such practices *several* times on this list?
Bertvan:
Hi Chris. I am delighted. If naturalism hasn't been proved, then you must
agree that any other concept, including ID, is legitimate for consideration.
Chris
>As I said, I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone. Second,
>creationists (a subcategory of intelligent design advocates) *are* trying
>to impose their views on others. Finally, materialists may be taking to the
>courts to enforce the view that only evolution be taught as *science*, but
>that's partly because ID theory is *not* science (despite the mislabeled
>claims of Behe and others. (snip about abolishing state sponsored education.)
Bertvan:
If naturalism hasn't been proved there is no reason science can not consider
other concepts such as design. Design was a part of science for thousands of
years. Only during the last couple of centuries have some scientists
declared that science can no longer entertain the possibility of teleology.
Maybe materialists are entitled to define 19th century "materialist
science". In which case, the public is entitled to know that not all
scientists confine their speculations to materialism.
Stephen, Mike Gene and most of the IDs I've read repeatedly acknowledge
belief in common descent. Personally, I'm a little less convinced of common
descent from one ancestor. There appear to be from 30 to 40 organisms
appearing in the Cambrian for which no apparent ancestor has been found.
What is being disputed by ID, is that the change which occurred in such
organisms over the centuries occurred without plan, purpose or design. I
have no idea of any mechanism which might be involved, but Darwinism (RM&NS
plus drift) appears as unlikely to me as theism does to you. I recognize
design in nature without any opinions about the origin of that design.
Similarly, I can refrain from speculating about what caused the "big bang",
or devising theories about what existed before the "big bang".
Chris:
>if you think that naturalistic evolutionary theory only includes "random
>mutation," "natural selection," and genetic drift, you are at least twenty
>or thirty years behind the times.
Bertvan:
Please, Chris, bring me up to date. What mechanisms are postulated by
Darwinism to account for the change in organisms, if not RM&NS plus drift? I
don't want to anticipate your answer, but I confess claiming "the Hox genes
did it" is no different to me than saying "god did it". Also, saying a
duplicated gene decided to perform a "new function" leaves unanswered the
question of who or what did the "deciding". Whatever it was, did it "decide"
to perform some random function, of which the number must be infinite, or did
it "decide" to perform some function necessary to the design? If the new
function was necessary to the design, there would be no need for Natural
Selection to do any designing, would there?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
P.S.
The Chinese appear skeptical of Darwinism, and leaning toward something
called "harmonies". Do you consider them "creationists"?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 09 2000 - 13:39:27 EDT