rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/29/85)
>> I did not reply to those arguments, but I believe that now is >> the time to do so. Sure, design is subjective. But subjectivity >> is not akin to irrational. I can't believe that a scientist >> who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and >> objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain >> laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who >> can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue >> that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance. >> [DAN BOSKOVICH] Why not, Dan? If you look only at your own little world, it seems real remarkable. If you look at the universe at large, it is all within the scope of probability. Thus, your bold presumption that it MUST have been by design is irrational in the extreme. What's more, using the subjective, clouded as it is by such preconceptions, is indeed quite irrational. >> And, in light of this, you have the gall to ask for a reason >> to believe in Creation. Please, Derrick, give me one reason >> to believe in Evolution. The last resort of those who make bold assumptions like Dan's (see above) as if they were a priori facts is "*YOU* show *ME* why *I* should believe *YOU*!" Dan, YOU are making the outlandish claim (as shown above), totally unsupported by evidence as it is. It's not "gall". It's perfectly proper and it's YOU who's showing gall. > Please note that, if evolution is true [I believe it has much essential > truth], then the present complexity was there from the beginning, only > it was dormant -- exactly like a seed. [MICHAEL ELLIS] That's not strictly true either, unless you once again define some "planning force" that designed the complexity. The potential for the complexity is in the nature of the universe itself. > Science only describes objective mechanisms, not subjective things like > `purpose' or `meaning'. As such, it will always be soulless, and its > descriptions incomplete. But that does not mean that is wrong -- > except when science declares itself to be All That Is. Pardon me for thinking, Mike, but my gut response is "What a load of crap!" (Or, to quote a famous philosopher: Ingest excrement and self-terminate! :-) Is it "soulless" to avoid wishful thinking presumption of intended meanings and purposes, or to avoid presuming their existence at all in the absence of evidence for them? Is it "incomplete" in any sense other than that *you*, my friend, like so many others, wish for something more that that which is? All the "purposes" and "meanings" ever proposed have no basis in reasoning or fact or evidence, only in wishful thinking and presumption, never backed by anything more than that. If I'm wrong, show me a counterexample. The tone of the beginning of the paragraph may be harsh, but I've grown to become literally offended by that sort of "fuzzy thinking". > Why evolution cannot be seen, by Christians, as a description of part > of the mechanism God used to make the present complexity, is beyond me. > Fundamentalist Christians and Scientific Materialists are so much alike. > Tweedledum or Tweedledee? SMASH CAUSALITY!!! On the other hand, religionists of all sorts, neo-mystics, and hopeful causality smashers are so much alike, too. (Three blind mice? Or three something-elses?) -- Like a vermin (HEY!), shot for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr