Susan
Hi Susan,
I'm not really into debating. I think in actual debate, one is supposed to
be able to argue either side of a question, and I doubt I could do that. You
have never been in my kill file, Susan. Sometimes I don't answer posts
because I have nothing to say. For instance, you believe chance and
selection are adequate to explain the origin of intelligence and complexity.
I don't, but I have no desire to try to change your belief.
I only become passionate about an idea when I see someone try to bully people
out of expressing a minority view. Richard pointed out an example of an ID
supporter calling Elsberry obnoxious. Sorry to see that, but since we are
discussing ideas, it would have been much worse if they had called him
ignorant. I have repeatedly heard the accusation that the only people
questioning "chance and selection as the explanation of evolution" are
ignorant, religious bigots. Since I am comparatively well informed, and
neither religious nor a bigot, I can answer that accusation with authority.
However, if design in nature is ever accepted by the majority, I can well
imagine someone trying to bully people into voicing allegiance to some
particular version of ID.
Before "chance and selection", there were other issues about which I felt
passionate. When living in the South I hated segregation, and expressed my
disapproval before it became fashionable to do so. When the Freudians tried
to tell me I had caused my son's autism, I didn't retreat. I stood and
argued with them for two and a half years. When McCarthy declared everyone
was a monster who even had friends interested in communism, I hated it.
Because of my husband's career, I didn't speak out as loudly as I wish I had,
and I think I've always felt guilty about that.
I think you sometimes feel you are a minority because of your religious
views. I live in a different place among different people. However, even
when conventional religion was much more the accepted norm than it is now, I
never felt any particular pressure for religious conformity. Today, I sense
that some sectors of society are even hostile toward religion.
As long as I see examples of attempts to limit discussion about evolution,
such as Mike Gene points out happened in Georgia, I'll keep repeating that
one doesn't even have to be religious to be skeptical of "chance and
selection" as an explanation of evolution. (I acknowledge that there is an
*element* of chance in everything, but do not believe it plays a roll in the
origin of intelligence and complexity.)
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 18 2000 - 12:09:33 EST