Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 16:56:43 EDT

All of the logical, philosophical arguments in the world will not stand
against solid, positive, empirical investigation such as the kind that from
the nineteenth century on has established a scientific basis for biological
evolution. During the 20th century the evidence from geology, the fossil
record, genetics and molecular biology made it possible to place on even
firmer, rational, footing an evolutionary paradigm, and genetic
mutation/natural selection/attendent processes (e.g., genetic drift, gene
flow) as the most reasonable set of theoretical explanations for how
evolution works. When the philosophical anti-evolutionists will move their
science colleagues to do the positive science (I don't mean positivism), the
empirical/observational/testing kind of research to come up with the data to
build a true alternative to natural selection or the evolutionary paradigm,
then I'll begin to listen to their arguments. It becomes wearisome after a
while to hear the same old repetitive claims that systems/organisms are
"irreducibly complex" or that statistically, such a thing cannot be
accomplished through evolution, or philosophically evolution doesn't work.
In order to create a scientific alternative that will convince the
scientific community (and me), the scientists who argue for ID are going to
have to show that its alternative works. They haven't. I would be happy if
they would take up the challenge. This will include their designing a
research program for their "theistic science." So far, they haven't done
that preliminary step, in my view.

In 1800 the German philosopher Friedrick Hegel published a paper in which he
argued that philosophically speaking there can be only seven planets. Well,
guys with new, improved telescopes proved he was wrong.

Finally, to Janice: I have read several of Francisco Ayala's papers and
heard him lecture twice. I think it is quite mistaken to lump him with
Gould and others and describe his worldview as "inherently irrational." Far
from it.

Bob Schneider

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pim van Meurs" <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
To: "janice matchett" <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Cc: "Tim" <tpi.hormel@comcast.net>; <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Saturday, August
06, 2005 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: Stereotypes and reputations

> janice matchett wrote:
>
>> At 02:42 PM 8/6/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>>
>>> That's why I find claims that other philosophical positions are somehow
>>> irrational but one's own isn't, to be well, irrational.
>>
>>
>>
>> ### That's because you apparently embrace the only other game in town.
>>
>> There are only two games in town; God is God or man is god.
>>
>> I don't respect the opinions of those who embrace the man-centered
>> religion. I believe they're irrational. :)
>>
> I undertstand that you do not believe them to be rational but that hardly
> means that you should not respect differing opinions.
> Additionally, you are wrong, I do not 'embrace the only other game in
> town'. First of all I am a Christian, second of all there is hardly a
> logical argument to be made that there are only 'two games in town'. Life
> is much more complicated than a dualistic position chosen here.
>
>
Received on Sat Aug 6 16:56:53 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 06 2005 - 16:56:54 EDT