> >Susan said:
> >> >It's not so much that we mind our own business, but that we consider
> > >>proselytizing to be in bad taste. :-)
> >
>
>Bertvan
> >>As an agnostic I would never proselytize, but I regard ridiculing anyone's
> >>religion in the worst possible taste.
>
>Chris
> >And, of course, truth is *much* less important than good taste, right?
>
> >Besides, you have repeatedly claimed that Darwinism/Naturalism is a
> >religion *and* you have repeatedly *ridiculed* it. Wouldn't that be bad
> >taste, by your own claims? Just asking.
>
>Bertvan:
>Since no one is going to prove the "truth" or "untruth" of any religion, one
>might argue that good taste is all that is at stake.
Chris
That, of course, assumes that it *is* a religion rather than a scientific
question to be answered by observational testing in the real world.
Bertvan
>If I have ridiculed
>Darwinism/Naturalism it was inadvertent and in poor taste. I don't usually
>try to dissuade Darwinists or materialists from their beliefs. Materialism,
>or determinism, is a view widely held by perfectly intelligent people. I have
>stated repeatedly that your particular arguments are complex and well thought
>out. I object to materialism being imposed upon society as "scientific
>truth".
Chris
I object to that, as well, for a number of reasons, not the least of which
is that materialism is a *philosophical* position, not a *scientific* one.
Science does not validate materialism. Rather science *rests* on a kind of
materialism. Thus, the attempt to impose materialism as *scientific* truth
is not only bad science, it is also bad philosophy.
On the other hand, the claimed negative consequences of materialism are
*not* the consequences of materialism as such, but of *mixing* materialism
with basic presuppositions of religions such as Christianity. Materialism
implies that there is no external moral constraints on human behavior, that
morality is not "out there" in the world, like "the Force" in the Star Wars
movies, or like God in Christianity. But materialism does *not* imply that
there is no basis for a morality at all, despite the attempts of Christians
and others and even some materialists to make such claims about the
implications of materialism.
Bertvan
>I have one point in these discussions. Namely, that one doesn't
>even have to be religious to be skeptical of "chance and selection" as an
>explanation of evolution. My hope is to see belief or skepticism of "chance
>and selection" regarded as a legitimate difference of opinion - just as
>materialism and its alternatives are legitimate differences of opinion.
Chris
It is, as long as it's based on a legitimate factual basis and valid
reasoning from that factual basis -- something we have yet to see -- or on
simple ignorance ("I don't understand it, but it seems doubtful to me"
would be legitimate, for example).
What we see, instead, is *dogmatic* rejection of evolutionary theory -- and
the repeated, endless repetition of the false or at least the seriously
misleading claim that it is merely random mutations and natural selection,
or, as you put it above, "chance and selection." Such a characterization,
in context, would be acceptable, but you always treat it as a definitional
statement of naturalistic evolutionary theory.
Bertvan
>I have also stated repeatedly that if everyone stopped calling ID
>"creationism", I'd probably lose interest in the controversy.
Chris
Since, in almost all cases, it *is* creationism, why does it bother you?
Your own views do not seem to be creationist, but Jones' are, as are those
of Dembski, Behe, Johnson, and so on. As a political and social movement,
it is almost *entirely* creationistic, even though, technically, you are
right; some people can be supporters of ID *without* being creationists. In
fact, were it not for your bizarre concept of "design," your views would
not be considered design theory at all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 11 2000 - 23:42:59 EST