In a message dated 10/2/2000 9:49:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Bertvan@aol.com writes:
> Most Darwinists consider these discussions debates, with the winner being
> the
> one who can think up the most offensive insults, the most scathing sarcasm.
>
>
Could you quantify these unsupported assertions? Could you even document them?
> Most Darwinists also seem more interested in bashing religion than in
> discussing evolution. Neither of these appear true of you so far. Nor
> have
>
Could you quantify these assertions and could you document them.
> 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
>
That's imho a poor reason to chose to oppose Darwinism. I guess that the
distasteful past of the Christian Church should mean that I should not be a
Christian?
> inference helpful. I haven't noticed anyone trying to impose this concept
> upon scientists who don't find it helpful. However, ID critics appear
>
ID is (ab)used by some groups to do exactly that.
> 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"?
>
The real issue is: Is ID scientifically useful. So far the ball is still in
the ID court. That you are not interested in science is obvious but do not
hold others to your own standards.
> Some argue that science is merely methodological naturalism. In that case,
> science should remain silent on questions of teleology and origins. I
> agree
>
And it is. So why the strawman?
> 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
>
You are now confusing science with scientists.
> 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.
>
>
Good for you. I tend to disagree with your viewpoint though.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 02:23:23 EDT