>Bertvan:
>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.
That's in debating societies (of which this not not an example) and in
debate classes. I have frequently debated the creationist side with friends
who thought they had a slick, pat answer to creationism. Usually with
entertaining results.
>You
>have never been in my kill file, Susan. Sometimes I don't answer posts
>because I have nothing to say.
That doesn't quite explain why you don't answer my direct questions, even
with "I don't know." "Agnostic" means "don't know."
>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.
yeah, yeah, I know. Persuading someone away from a belief is a bad thing.
If one of my grandchildren thinks there's a monster in the closet it's
indecent and wrong for me to open the closet door and show them there's no
monster.
>I only become passionate about an idea when I see someone try to bully people
>out of expressing a minority view.
bullying is in the eye of a the beholder in this instance. If you think
someone on any of these lists is trying to bully you, why on Gods Green
Earth do you hang around and take it?
>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.
:-) Oh, Dembski knows Elsberry is not ignorant. That's why he thinks
Elsberry is so obnoxious. Elsberry keeps pointing out the holes in
Dembski's theory and since Dembski is not doing science, he doesn't want to
know, or want anybody *else* to know where those holes are. Science is
self-correcting. A scientists *WANTS TO KNOW* where the holes and
weaknesses in his arguments are. (Scientists are human beings, and they
usually hope there are no holes in their pet theories, but if someone
points them out and the criticisms are valid they will accept them, however
reluctantly.)
>I have repeatedly heard the accusation that the only people
>questioning "chance and selection as the explanation of evolution" are
>ignorant, religious bigots.
Sticks and stones. So what? If evolutionists were all serial killers it
still wouldn't have anything at all to do with the reality of evolution.
Besides, you haven't heard any of this from me.
>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.
So all opinions are *not* created equal. In the past, you have said that
everybody had right to their opinion and I agree. However, sometimes those
opinions are vile or simply wrong. If they lead people to cause harm then
it is a *good* thing to persuade them out of their opinions if you can.
Especially if you can do it using facts and logic. Sometimes it think it is
facts and logic themselves that you find "intimidating."
>I think you sometimes feel you are a minority because of your religious
>views.
I am in an extreme minority because of my religious views. I think atheists
are about 4% of the population.
>Today, I sense
>that some sectors of society are even hostile toward religion.
Not even all of the 4% are hostile to religion, so Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson are not exactly in trouble.
There seems to be a new movement afoot that is urging scientists to debate
creationists as a way to expose creationists arguments for the shams they
are and to educate the public about what evolution actually says.
Also Kenneth Miller's idea that Christian theology is not only not harmed
or challenged by naturalistic evolution, but is actually *required* by
Christian theology may actually do a lot to help Christians learn that
"naturalism" and evolution are not their enemies.
>(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.)
Since you have argued against *both* chance *and* determinism, I'm glad to
see you add this. Why do you believe that chance does not play a part in
it? Chance plays a part in *everything*. It played a part in my sitting
here in this particular room in this particular town in front of this
particular computer. Why is the evolution of life exempt? Are you aware
that if evolution and the history of life are "directed" then we live in a
determinist world and none of us is really free?
Susan
--------
Always ask. Hang out with people who make you laugh. Love as many people as
you can. Read everything you can get your hands on. Take frequent naps.
Watch as little television as you can stand. Tell people what you want. Do
what you love as much as you can. Dance every day.
--------
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 18 2000 - 14:34:10 EST