I'm not out to change your opinions by argumentation. I'm interested in
exploring ideas thoroughly. I also am ready to change my ideas if I
can be shown credible evidence for some better explanation. I try not
to take criticism of my posts too personally. Of course, I write
fiction in my spare time and that develops a pretty thick hide towards
criticism of what one writes. :)
ralph
>Hi Ralph,
>Most Darwinists consider these discussions debates, with the winner being the
>one who can think up the most offensive insults, the most scathing sarcasm.
>Most Darwinists also seem more interested in bashing religion than in
>discussing evolution. Neither of these appear true of you so far. Nor have
>I found such attitudes prevalent among skeptics of Darwinism. I call myself
>an ID supporter as much out of distaste for ID critics, as commitment to any
>particular ID concept. Some scientists have claimed to find a design
>inference helpful. I haven't noticed anyone trying to impose this concept
>upon scientists who don't find it helpful. However, ID critics appear
>offended that any scientist should use an inference they don't find useful.
>What is it to them? Why should the biologists at Baylor raise such a fuss
>about it even being discussed at their university? Why the constant
>insistence that any skepticism of Darwinism (chance variation and natural
>selection) is equal to "creationism"?
>
>I don't know how evolution occurred. I am interested in everyone with an
>original thought on the subject. I was skeptical of "chance variation and
>natural selection" as an explanation long before I ever heard of Johnson,
>Denton, Behe, Dembski, Kauffman, panspermia, or other writers who apparently
>share my skepticism. If we ever achieve further understanding of life, I'm
>convinced we will have to think of life beyond the framework of the orthodox,
>Darwinist, materialist model. (I have no desire to disturb or antagonize
>those people who are satisfied with their present understanding of
>evolution.) It appears obvious to me that intelligence, free will,
>creativity, spontaneity, and consciousness are all a part of life. Direction
>in evolution also appears obvious, as well as the observation that complex
>biological systems were not likely the result of chance. I have no desire to
>try to change the opinion of anyone to whom the opposite appears obvious.
>Neither view has been established with any certainty.
>
>Some argue that science is merely methodological naturalism. In that case,
>science should remain silent on questions of teleology and origins. I agree
>with Johnson that in biology, science has tried to exceeded it's authority by
>declaring that evolution can be explained by purely naturalistic mechanisms -
>and Darwinism seems to be the best naturalistic explanation anyone has been
>able to come up with. My participation in these discussions is a search for
>explanations. I also find them helpful to clarify my own thoughts. I've
>found people supporting ID to be more open to new thoughts than those
>defending Darwinism.
>
>Bertvan
>http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 13:31:28 EDT