Reflectorites
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:53:12 EDT, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
BV>Although DNAunion didn't say anything more abusive than I've heard from
>Darwinists, I was also bothered by DNAunion's name calling. In my judgement such
>practice is more common among Darwinists than among ID supporters.
Agreed, he let the side down badly.
BV>It would
>be hard to imagine more personal attack than what passes for debate on Talk
>Origins. Stephen doesn't question anyone's motives, intelligence, honesty or
>sincerely. He does question people's philosophy.
Agreed. These issues are not really rocket science. They are 99% philosophy. The
problem with some of those on the Evolution side is they seem to be unaware that they
even *have* a philosophy.
BV>I believe one philosophy
>is more valid than another, but personal judgement is the only means of
>distinguishing that validity, so I grant everyone's right to develop their
>own philosophy.
So do I, I hasten to add.
BV>Although I am not in agreement with Phillip Johnson's
>politics or religion, I do agree that Darwinism (chance mutation and natural
>selection as the designer of life's complexity) has been an attempt to impose
>materialism upon society as TRUTH. I am grateful for those who have spoken
>out against it.
Yes. It is really the equivalent of the State Church of Gallileo's day.
Johnson has pointed out the irony that the NAS is behaving towards
the ID movement exactly as the College of Cardinals acted towards
Gallileo. Gallileo was not challenging the Bible, as the myth would
have it, but the prevailing scientific *philosophy* of his day. They
refused to look at the evidence because it contradicted their
philosophy, namely Aristotelianism.
BV>I disagreed with Darwinism long before I had personal contact with any
>Darwinist. However Darwinists' lack of tolerance has caused me, an agnostic,
>to feel distaste for materialists, and atheists in particular.
I am sure this is true of a lot of people. As ID gathers strength the
Darwinists arrogant attitude is going to play into their hands. A lot of
people can't understand the details, but they know what a threatened power-
elite that is trying desperately to hang on to power by any means looks like,
because they have had plenty of practice spotting those!
[...]
BV>PS
>I actually know some extremely tolerant materialists, but they don't happen
>to be trying to promote Darwinism.
There may even be some tolerant Darwinists, but I haven't come across any.
Maybe there isn't because Darwinism depends more on dismissing other
arguments than establishing their own (see tagline).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The primary problem with the [modern evolutionary] synthesis is that its
makers established natural selection as the director of adaptive evolution by
eliminating competing explanations, not by providing evidence that natural
selection among 'random' mutations could, or did, account for observed
adaptation (Box 2). Mayr remarked, 'As these non-Darwinian explanations
were refuted during the synthesis ... natural selection automatically became
the universal explanation of evolutionary change (together with chance
factors).' Depriving the synthesis of plausible alternatives, which seemed
such a triumph, in fact sowed the seeds of its faults." (Leigh E.G., "The
modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp.495-498, December 1999, p.495. Ellipses
Leigh's).
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 03:59:53 EDT