From: Joel Peter William Pitt (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 22 2005 - 20:00:49 MDT
I don't think that creationism/ID and evolution are mutually
exclusive. As I see it I would be much more impressed by a
"god"/"pan-dimensional hypergalactic FAI" that could create the
universe with all the possibilities (seemingly) inherent in it and
still produce intelligent life through competition and natural
And as it is, it seems most of the contention comes from assuming
molecules just formed into self-replicating units instead of being
created by a higher power. Of course there are plenty of theoretical
simulations to suggest this *can* be spontaneous.
Of course I believe in no such god. But I do believe in the
universe... so maybe I'm no better than religious freaks since the
universe existing isn't a falsifiable theory.
(I think this conversation is heading down non-SL4 territory)
On 6/22/05, Russell Wallace <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 6/22/05, Matt Arnold <email@example.com> wrote:
> > The word theory is used in science to mean a model or framework
> > describing the behaviour of a natural or social phenomenon.
> > Intelligent Design, like every flavor of creationism, provides no
> > alternative model or framework, but is a claim that the phenomenon
> > being described-- evolution-- doesn't exist. It shouldn't be dignified
> > with the use of the word theory.
> Maybe not, but I'm not sure attacking creationism head on is the most
> effective strategy. It might be better to seek its roots.
> What's the motive for creationism in the first place? It's not general
> luddism or antirationalism, or its advocates would also be attacking
> astronomy, physics and chemistry; they'd be trying to persuade people
> the planets are mounted on crystal spheres turned by angels, and life
> works by mystic protoplasm rather than molecular machinery. Granted,
> there are a handful of people who make such claims, but everyone
> recognizes them as being a handful of fruitcakes; evolution is the one
> scientific theory on which religiously motivated attacks receive
> significant mainstream support. Why?
> I think what it boils down to is that evolution is seen to be linked
> with nihilism; and frankly, if you look at today's writings on
> evolution, it's understandable why people make that mistake. And if
> it's a choice between throwing out a scientific theory (even a true
> one) and throwing out the moral fabric that holds civilization
> together and gives meaning to life, choosing the first option is
> arguably the _right_ thing to do.
> So there's no point in just throwing scientific arguments in people's
> faces when the issue, as far as they're concerned, is a moral one. If
> you want to make headway against creationism, I think the most
> effective way to do it is to decouple evolution from nihilism; to
> explain why there is no contradiction between the propositions "humans
> evolved from apes" and "the universe has a good purpose".
> - Russell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT