Chris:
>Your own suggestion of "common sense" skepticism is better than complete
>general gullibility, but only marginally, because it produces its own kind
>of gullibility. Your acceptance of design in the Universe is an example.
>You don't like naturalistic evolution, and you show little sign of even
>understanding it or how it's supposed to work (other than at the cliche
>level), so you can't give a coherent explanation of why you think it's not
>acceptable. But you belly up to the bar of design theory without any
>apparent "common sense" qualms. The double standard here is fairly obvious,
>and yet, I gather, you have gone for years and years without noticing it.
Hi Chris,
It's easy to belly up to the bar of design theory. So far, ID theorists
don't have any orthodoxy to which one has to pledge allegiance. (Such as
insistence that teleology does not exist in nature, or promise not to
criticize Darwin or "chance and selection".) Some IDs even disagree with
Dembski on some points. I am not a materialist. I reject your view that
only a science based upon materialism is valid. Are you willing to define
the evolution debate on those terms -- materialism vs. non-materialism?
That should certainsly help the public make up its mind.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
P.S.
I don't dislike naturalistic evolution. Once we recognize that life differs
from non-life, I suspect we might come to understand many naturalistic
processes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 26 2000 - 16:27:16 EDT