>Bertvan
>Hi Cliff H,
>>My question was what is the belief that opposes ID. From your reply I
assume
>>it is that life arose through purely naturalistic means. I am not "opposed"
>>to such a theory. I just don't believe it. Are you willing to put everyone
>>who is skeptical of abiogenesis in the ID camp? We would be delighted.
In
>>any case, I encourage anyone who believes life arose naturalistically to
>>pursue it vigorously. I question anyone's right to declare abiogenesis a
>>fact until it has been demonstrated.
Susan:
>I thought asserting things as facts without evidence was your God- (or
>whoever) given right! Everybody has to have hard evidence for their beliefs
>but Bertvan. Nice work if you can get it!
Bertvan:
Hi Susan, Any "evidence" you cite is not yours. You are merely repeating
someone else's "evidence". (Hopefully you completely understand it.) There
are plenty of scientists skeptical that life arose accidentally from inert
chemicals. You can read their "evidence" if you wish. If you aren't
convinced, I have no desire to persuade you otherwise.
Susan:
>I thought you had read Hoyle and very much admired him. That aliens did it
>is his favorite explanation for life on earth. (Of course, he also believes
>that insects are more intelligent than we are and just keeping it a secret
>from us dumb humans.)
Bertvan:
I've read quite a lot by Hoyle. If he really says that, I respectfully
disagree.
Susan
>McCarthyism is a government persecution thing. Johnson, Dembsky, et al. are
>pushing the ID agenda because they are evangelical Christians. They make no
>secret about it. Acknowledging the obvious is not persecution.
Bertvan:
McCarthyism was probably a poor choice of words. If some people advocating
ID were Buddhists that would not make us all Buddhists. If some of them are
musicians, others of us are tone deaf. ID is a concept. Many ID advocates
are Christian. Those of us who are agnostic, and also believe life is the
result of a rational design rather than random processes, are grateful to
them for their efforts to bring the concept to the attention of the public.
(It's pretty obvious biologists don't want it brought to their attention.)
Susan:
>there are many more agnostics than atheists. Most people prefer to say "I
>don't know" than go out on a limb and say "I know there is no such thing as
>the supernatural."
Bertvan,
I'm a little confused here. I thought it was the Darwinists (or whatever you
call yourselves) who state "I know there is no such thing as the
supernatural." You also "know" life arose accidentally from inert chemicals,
don't you?
>Susan
>To be an ID adherent you have to believe--with no
>verification--that some supernatural agency exists which is powerful enough
>to interfere with the reproduction of every genome for the last 3.5 billion
>years.
Bertvan:
Really? I haven't heard any ID supporter suggest that, but maybe you've read
more of them than I have.
Bertvan:
>>You see, I don't really have any objections to
>>Darwinists, or anyone else, "distorting science and the truth to manipulate
>>people and the society they live in".
Susan:
>If you really believe "Darwinists" are doing that you SHOULD object (and
>expose some acutal instances of it) or you are as immoral as they are.
Bertvan:
You are good at judging other people's morals and deciding what they should
and should not do. I have no desire to silence Darwinists, whatever they are
doing. I have no desire to silence materialists. I don't even want to
silence YECs. The conflict of ideas will play itself out, and a better
understanding of life will eventually emerge, so long as everyone's voice is
allowed to be heard.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 30 2000 - 15:56:36 EDT