To: susanb@telepath.com (Susan Brassfield Cogan)
Susan:
>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.
Bertvan:
If you could refrain from equating belief in design with monsters in closets,
I'll have no trouble refraining from equating Darwinism with such monsters.
The question of whether or not design exists in nature is something upon
which perfectly intelligent people disagree. The existence of teleology has
been debated for centuries. Are you now announcing an end to that debate?
Susan:
>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."
Bertvan:
I would not state that you, or any other believer in "chance and selection",
find facts and logic "intimidating". Rather I would suggest that we see the
same facts and interpret them differently. A "logical" reason can be devised
to believe almost anything. Otherwise differences of opinion would not
exist. The number of scientists is growing who are willing to admit chance
and selection seems an inadequate explanation of evolution. Even if that
consensus grew to a majority, I would not declare everyone who disagreed
"wrong". I regard differences of opinion on scientific matters as healthy.
Susan:
>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.
Bertvan:
Two questions. (1) Do you consider me a creationist? And (2) do you believe
"evolution actually says" chance and selection are the explanation for the
creation of intelligence and complexity?
Susan:
>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.
Bertvan:
I'm puzzled as to why you include this, since I've stated repeatedly than I
am not a Christian.
Susan:
>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?
Bertvan:
Now here is a question worth debating. Pre-designed life would seem to imply
determinism. I can't speak for anyone else, but that is not what I mean by
ID. I suspect the intelligence responsible for the design in nature is an
intrinsic part of all life. It may be arrogant of us to limit the existence
of consciousness, free will, intelligence, choice, creativity, spontaneity,
etc., to our own species. In regard to the recent article about how cells
communicate with each, how can communication occur without the existence of
some form of intelligence? If science can not deal with these qualities, I'm
content to leave life unexplained. I'm still not willing to settle for
"chance and selection" as an explanation.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 18 2000 - 16:51:15 EST