>>Chris
>>>Finally, echoing Arnhart, the theistic ID position is based almost entirely
>>>on ignorance. It's the "God of the Gaps," again. Since we do not *know* how
>>>life originated, we *cannot* argue that it must have been design. Since we
>>>do not have *any* specific evidence of an actual *instance* of divine
>>>intervention (and just how would we know it was *divine* intervention,
>>>anyway?), we cannot claim to know that such interventions have occurred.
>>>The strongest claim we can make is that we are *ignorant* of such things.
>>>And ignorance means *ignorance*, not an excuse to make any damn arbitrary
>>>claim we happen to want to believe because it fits our desires or religious
>>>beliefs. (This is something many of the *non-theistic* ID theorists need to
>>>learn as well (Bertvan?).)
Bertvan
>>Hi Chris,
>>I have stated repeatedly that a profession of ignorance would be acceptable
>>to me. And ignorance means ignorance, not an excuse to make such arbitrary
>>claim such as, "We know exactly how it happened. It was random variation
and
>>natural selection," just because that is the only explanation we can think
of
>>that fits a materialistic philosophy. I'm convinced there was a lot more
to
>>it than that simplistic explanation.
Chris
(snip long description of "emptiness" of ID and the ignorance of its
supporters)
Chris:
>In short, considering the almost perfect emptiness of your theory in
>objective terms, and the vast richness mathematically demonstrable as
>possible with a replication and branch-by-variation method,
>you are *hardly* in a position to be criticizing evolutionary theory as
>*simplistic.*
Bertvan:
"Chance variation and natural selection" constantly makes predictions about
the past, none of which can be verified. "A vast richness mathematically
demonstrable-as-possible with a branch-by-variation method" sounds like a
likely explanation of evolution to you. Until you find a way to verify that
is what really happened (not just demonstrate that it might be
mathematically possible), those of us to whom RM&NS sounds implausible will
continue to look for other explanations. As for predictions, Mike Gene makes
some in the following post. I am not qualified to evaluate them. Scientists
will do that. Perhaps you would like to give it a try.
http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000062.html
bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 14 2000 - 11:57:06 EDT