Defining terms

From: Bertvan@aol.com
Date: Sat Jul 15 2000 - 12:42:00 EDT

  • Next message: Bertvan@aol.com: "Randomness and complex organization via evolution"

    Hi David,
    I appreciated you thoughtful piece about the problem of definitions, but
    don't know what might be done about it, since no one seems to be in charge of
    definitions. I doubt any effort to establish definitions would be applauded
    by everyone. Critics of "evolution" (whatever that is) often complain that
    when they criticize Darwinism (random mutation and natural selection plus
    drift) their opponents counter by declaring "evolution" isn't merely RM&NS,
    but most of us have been unable to find out exactly what that "something
    else" is. Most proponents of ID accept some form of common descent, but the
    defenders of orthodoxy appear to become equally indignant about ID,
    Lamarckism, or any other mechanism other than RM&NS. In view of all that, I
    suspect there are real differences of opinion between those who argue on both
    sides of the evolution question, and it is this difference which arouses the
    passion. That difference would appear to be the existence or non-existence
    of teleology in nature. Since the evidence for the existence or
    non-existence of teleology in nature us available to all of us, scientist or
    non-scientist, I argue that everyone is entitled to their own judgement on
    the matter. RM&NS seems to specifically exclude teleology, and in my
    judgement, should not be imposed upon anyone as " scientific truth". Any
    "theory of evolution" should allow the possibility of both the existence or
    the non-existence of teleology. ID allows the possibility of teleology, but
    as an agnostic I can accept evidence of design without worrying about the
    origin of that design. (Just as I can accept the existence of the universe,
    matter, the "laws of nature, life, consciousness, morality, or anything else,
    without worrying about their origin.) Most of the passionate objection to
    ID voiced by the defenders of orthodoxy appears to be indignation that ID
    might imply the possibility of a designer.

    Bertvan
    http://members.aol.com/bertvan

    P.S. If you are going to voice any dissent from orthodoxy, David, you have to
    be tough to withstand counter attacks. Hope you stay with us.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 12:42:20 EDT