> 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?
The existence of teleology has been debated for decades. Before that
teleology was assumed. I did not equate belief in design with belief
in monsters. You should simmer down and re-read my paragraph. I'm
talking about showing someone that their beliefs are wrong by
presenting evidence. You had said that was a *bad* thing. I was
showing you that it was not a bad thing at all.
>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".
yes, it's obviously not true. I use facts and logic (and a bit of
humor) as just about my only debate techniques. Your charges of
"intimidation" and "bullying" have always fascinated me. You've never
identified actual behaviors that you think could be described by
those words. And though you obviously believe it is the situation,
you keep putting up with it. There are probably hundreds of e-lists
on this topic, some more polite than others.
>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?
I think variation (however it occurs) and selection (along with the
addition of energy, the laws of physics, etc.) are the source of all
life. Are you a creationist? Not exactly. You freely borrow ideas
from creationists if they seem to agree with you. You seem to have
accepted their definition of evolution uncritically and are as
ignorant about actual evolution as they generally are.
>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.
you had said "I sense that some sectors of society are even hostile
toward religion."
I was responding to your remark. Both Christians and evolutionists
seem to think that if evolution is true then Christianity (and the
New Age mysticism that you seem to subscribe to) would be destroyed.
I--and Kenneth Miller--believe that is not correct.
>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.
and once again we come to the fact that 98% of all species (not
individuals *species*) that ever lived have gone extinct. Most of
them didn't even leave descendants. Why? Why did they direct
themselves into death?
Susan
-- ----------I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 20 2000 - 17:46:20 EST