avocationist
Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Flint, et al,
| Quote |
Is there such a person? I think there was an ARN thread some while back where the ID proponents were asked to name ANYONE who was familiar with evolutionary theory, had no religious convictions against it, but still denied the basic principles. I don't think anyone could come up with a single person.
Ultimately, this is because the ONLY reason anyone rejects ANY explanation of anything, is because they find some other explanation more appealing. Since evolution is based on evidence, and has been thoroughly vetted by tens of thousands of professionals for 150 years, rejection implies some other explanation whose appeal is beyond question. Only religion qualifies. |
The problem is, this argument can easily be turned around. And it certainly seems to me that people who insist Darawinism is so obvious are glossing over the very good arguments against, which to my knowledge have never been answered because there exist no answers, and is every bit as blind as you think the other side is. You make the very good point that personal preference is a very strong, if not the strongest, cause for people to believe what they do. But if you think only the other side has that problem but not your own, then you may not have looked honestly.
It strikes me as just as true that those who cannot see any problem with Darwinism, or who are scandalized at the thought of intelligent design, are "unable to overcome" their bias.
Let me repeat: to simply insist there are no really good causes for a rational person to doubt Darwinism seems like a form of fundamentalist thinking, which is to say, completely unable to see another point of view.
And as I've mentioned and as so many other ID people have mentioned, we could, and often did, accept Darwinian evolution. Many people did, many authors including agnostics like Richard Milton. Behe himself always did, and when he read Denton's book it opened his eyes. But he and Ken Miller believe in the same God and go to the same pope to relieve their time in purgatory.
Since plenty of devout people accept Darwinian evolution, perhaps religion isn't the sole problem. Perhaps we are actually swayed by what appears to our no doubt deluded and low mental faculties as counterevidence.
I'd like to actually ask the people here a question. I guess it is a somewhat personal question. It seems to me that we have a pretty simple logical algorithm before us. At least two people here have admitted they think there is a God and presumably some others are agnostic. If there isn't one, we are done with the line of questioning. We can assign a 50/50 probability just for fun. But if there is a God, then presumably this God has something to do with causation of this universe, probably s/he would have something to do with the Big Bang, for example. So if our reality includes a God, then it is naturally possible that there are clues or evidence of that.
It seems very hard to find fault with that logic. So the ID position is that we can legitimately search for, and indeed feel we are hot on the trail of, evidence of the fundamental intelligence that underlies this universe.
If I understand the position taken here, it is that if there is a God, the universe will nonetheless look indistinguishable in every way from one without a God. Now, that may be true, but it hardly seems the most likely. Why then, such strong feelings about those who have taken a different leg of the algorithm?
My personal question is this: What does it mean to you if there is not only a God, but one who took some hand in evolution? If that is disappointing, why?
*************
Guthrie,
Your post is, as usual, logical. I'm not going to argue. You ask about proof of God, but I don't think you mean it. I have said that existence itself needs explaining. Something fundamentally different is required. If science does find some indirect proof, such as finding out something surprising about material reality, it would strengthen that thing called faith. That would be a bare outline. The only interesting way to know about God is subjectively, which only a few people are interested in.
| Quote | | If you wish to not be taken as a laughing stock, please explain why you still think that Behe et al are correct, i.e. explain how Miller etc were wrong in their critique of Behe. |
Sure, that seems useful. I'll probably have to print up the Miller paper and the critiques and go through it. I'm also interested in finding out if there are good answers to Denton's book, by which I mean the first one.
*****************
Henry,
| Quote | | Personally, I don't see how any cosmic purpose (if there is one) could depend on the biological details of how our bodies are constructed. (Or for that matter, at what location in the universe we appeared.) |
It appears from the vantage of biology that the purpose is to get different working bodies. I don't suppose the exact details are vital. Look at our cars, we just like variety and find it aesthetically pleasing to design new ones. The bit about our location in the universe bugs me. I haven't seen the movie or book, but I smell a rat. They might be right our location satisfies certain requirements, but it seems pretty horrifying if we are the only living planet out of billions of galaxies and I suspect some people want to think that way.
|
)