Tedd
>I would never agree that people understand each other or have
> seen or understood the same evidence in the vast majority of
> disagreements. (I've responded to many of your posts,
>Bertvan, but we've hardly ever gotten into a discussion of *details
> and evidence* for or against ID. We talk mainly about feelings
> and motives and emotion, all kinds of subjective topics, but
> rarely objective evidence. Quit honestly, I don't think
>you've seen the same evidence I have at all.)
Bertvan:
Hi Tedd. I am not interested in discussing the details of scientific
evidence. That is done in great detail on the web, and will eventually be
settled by scientists. People with scientific degrees express differences
of opinion, and I tend to trust those scientists who are civil, are tolerant
of differences of opinion, and don't misrepresent those who disagree with
them. However, whom I trust is beside the point. The disagreements will
eventually be decided by science. Whether or not resistance to antibiotic
constitutes an increase of information is one of those disagreements.
Whether or not you feel it "deserves" to be taken seriously, some scientists
apparently do.
I agree with Johnson when he suggests that the seemingly emotional attachment
to RM&NS is ideological, just as the attachment of many people to ID is
probably ideological. I am merely an observer, neither an atheist nor a
theist, who doesn't believe random mutation and natural selection is an
adequate explanation for the complexity of life. Since I don't believe
science has any business making ideological statements, any acceptable theory
should accommodate either atheism or theism. I personally don't see how a
theist could buy RM&NS, but I respect the decision of those theists who
apparently manage to do so. My main concern in the controversy is the
tactics employed by each side of the argument. For what my judgement is
worth, those writers who support ID (or oppose RM&NS) usually sound
reasonable. On the other hand, those denouncing the slightest criticism of
RM&NS more often use McCarthey-like tactics. If RM&NS is so obviously the
superior explanation, why all the effort to ensure that the ID position is
not heard? Or that school children find out about it? For that matter, why
get hysterical about those people who happen to believe in a literal
translation of Genesis? Do you actually fear that is going to replace
science?
Tedd:
>The first question -- whether or not NSRM *did* provide the
> information content of the genome -- is then less interesting
> because once you've demonstrated that something could happen
>and there's no objective reason (as opposed to subjective reasons)
>to think otherwise, that becomes the best support for the
>hypothesis that it did happen.
Bertvan:
You seem to feel it is enough to demonstrate that RM&NS *could* happen.
I'm more interested in whether it appears likely that it *did* happen by
RM&NS.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 10 2000 - 16:56:29 EDT