to'; Steve Crawford
Hi Steve
Most people engaged in these discussions have strong convictions and I doubt
minds are ever changed. The most we can hope for is to understand each
other's positions. My attempt to understand yours is sincere, so please
correct me when I misrepresent you.
You are against ID. Right? Not because you don't believe the universe is
the result of a design (God's design, in your case), but because you don't
regard the concept as scientific. Am I correct so far? At the moment I
don't know any serious alternative to ID, other than Darwinism (random
mutation and natural selection), a process which supposedly took place
without plan, purpose, meaning or design. (Are you aware of some other
explanation?)
Many scientists believe in a lack of design, and this belief is a part of
their science. It determines where they look for answers. For instance,
regarding most of the genome as "junk" is justified by belief in the
nonexistence of any design. A belief in Darwinism, and the designing power
of natural selection, is also justified by a conviction that no design
exists. Are you against ID because you believe the diversity of nature was
designed by random mutation and natural selection?
Many scientists believe the universe is the result of a rational design. Do
you feel such scientists, are also justified in regarding their belief as
part of their science? (As those who are convinced of lack of any design
quite frankly do.) Or, is it merely that you don't believe anyone should be
allowed to state a belief in design without specifying a designer? I'm sure
I've misrepresented you somewhere, and I apologize.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 05 2000 - 12:52:25 EDT