>
>Chris:
>>One reason is that randomness *is* complex organization.
>
Bertvan:
>Science is what we know about the universe.
actually science is a method for studying the universe. "Science" sometimes
gets used (and I'm pretty bad about this myself) as a shorthand for
"scientists who study this area." The scientific method only works on that
which is directly or indirectly observable.
>What we know about the history
>of life on earth is meager.
depends on your definition of "meager" There is still quite a lot to learn
but actually quite a lot is known.
>We know that different organisms have existed at
>different times, that they are in some respects similar and perhaps related,
>but that the differences are also great enough to avoid explanation.
you really are beginning to sound like a very typical young-earth
creationist. Throw in something about created kinds and you are there!
There are many examples of fossil series that gradually change from one
animal into another. *Some* lineages have breaks or gaps but the fossil
record taken as a while is very persuasive that evolution has occured. In
fact only a few people with a religious ax (or in your case an ideological
ax) to grind don't "find it compelling."
>At the
>moment any theories of how this came about is speculation, speculation
>usually designed to accommodate some particular philosophy, such as theism or
>atheism.
yep, all that's missing is some mention of created kinds or maybe a vapor
canopy. Have you discovered the "dust on the moon" argument? Did you miss
the material I posted about the Pope finding the evidence for evolution
persuasive? Do you think he's an atheist? This statement, frequently
repeated in most creationist literature and on creationist websites is a
transparent lie, easily disproved by the existence of a great many people
on this list.
Speculation is an idea that does not have any supporting evidence at all to
back it up. Evolution has massive amounts of evidence to back it up. That
you "don't find it compelling" doesn't mean you can pretend that it doesn't
exist at all.
>I haven't included agnosticism because one definition of an agnostic
>is the ability to live comfortably with unexplained phenomena.
That's an interesting definition of agnostic. I'm a Unitarian. I know
literally hundreds of agnostics. They seem to have a defining
characteristic which is to be constantly questioning, probing, wondering.
You have stated openly on this list that there are many areas of inquiry
that you *never* want questioned or explored.
> Theorizing leads to
>stagnation, only when some particular theory is declared to be "scientific
>truth".
when a massive amount of evidence supports a theory then it has to at least
be provisionally be accepted as the truth. Otherwise, how do we know
anything? How do we build our computers, airplanes and microwaves? How do
we cure disease or sequence the genome?
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 13 2000 - 13:00:34 EDT