Starboy

Vander, if that is what you wish to do that is fine with me as long as you accept the validity of the scientific explanation for the purposes of science. That goes for evolution as well. I have no problem with people possessing a religious view of the world as long as they understand the difference between science and religion. The cure for intolerance is understanding. I understand the religious point of view, I just don't appreciate it, but I am willing to tolerate it. I am willing to practice live and let live as long as the religiously inclined are willing to do so as well. When intolerance of other points of view becomes the norm, you get the world we have today, people willing to force their beliefs onto others at the threat of force, law and government.

Sorry, another rant. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Starboy

Albion

Vanderzyden, I'm re-asking two questions because you ignored them the first time I asked.

1. You said that accepting the possibility of design (I assume by God rather than natural agents) might be good for the scientist "as a person." In what way?

2. You keep talking about Darwinist philosophy and all its problems, which you seem to think are specific to this branch of science. What is this philosophy that is shared by every researcher in evolutionary biology and by no other scientist in any other discipline?

Vanderzyden

Sorry, Albion. I only have so much time to respond, so I must be selective. I am not "ignoring" you. Let me take a moment to answer your first question.

First, we must agree that all scientists are persons. Now, if a scientist were to entertain the possibility of design, then the next step is to understand what inferences may be drawn concerning the Designer. What evidence is available to gain an understanding of his characteristics? Cosmic "fine-tuning" is one area for consideration.

Of course, you eventually start to encounter challenges, such as the problem of evil, but at least the scientist is beginning to address equally scientific questions concerning existence--hers and that of the cosmos. These inquiries are potentially much more critical than "empirical" investigations.

Vanderzyden

Starboy

Van,

I still don't understand what you are trying to get at.

If you say that the sky was designed to be blue, would that mean it was because blue was god’s favorite color? How would introducing the idea of a creator help me in figuring out how the sky could be blue?

Starboy

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Starboy

Vander, there is a difference between a machine and the purpose of a machine. Science is in the situation where it is figuring out what is in the machine and how it works. We have no idea what purpose it could have. Perhaps when we have more of it figured out it may be clear. From where I stand, if it does have a purpose, it's got nothing to do with us. God could save science a great deal of trouble if he would fork over the plans and the business case. Perhaps he has not done so because his purpose and his machine have nothing to do with us.

Starboy

Albion

That's as may be, but they aren't science, they're philosophy, and since we already have the discipline of philosophy, I don't see why it needs to be dragged into science as well. If people want to embark on those philosophical voyages, there's nothing to stop them doing that now. Which brings me to my second question, about this Darwinian philosophy you keep mentioning - what is it, and why does it apply throughout evolutionary biology and to no other branch of science?

Vanderzyden

Permit me to rephrase: naturalists refuse to entertain "any idea" of purpose. Realists see purpose and intent everywhere they look.

Where exactly is it you stand? What has led you to conclude that nothing has purpose? I asked you before if you have made attempts to consider more possibilities, especially a serious consideration of views that differ from yours. I anticipate a direct answer. Can you honestly say that you have examined the flaws of Darwinism, or considered the respectable aspects of ID proposals?

But, the naturalistic scientist refuses to be rescued (you say "save") from its blindness and impotence. The Plans are available; the Case has been made. Perhaps you do not realize that many people categorically reject much of the available evidence, preferring the temporary comfort of their poorly justified beliefs. They don't ask, they tell.

It is the naturalist who has everything to lose, not the realist.

Vanderzyden

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Starboy

Very good, you are finally catching on. It is not mission of science to determine the purpose of the universe. I don’t understand your distinctions between naturalists and realists but as far as finding purpose that is what religion and philosophy are for. Are proposing that science pick up that mission because religion and philosophy are doing such a terrible job?

Vander, where do you think I stand? Here on the earth, in the Milky Way galaxy in the local group at the edge of the Virgo super cluster on the tread of the great attractor in just one tiny nexus in thus 14 billion light year universe. Where do you stand? I have a pretty good imagination. After I am done playing, I go under the night sky and look up with my telescope. I think I have a better idea of where I am than you do.
As far as the flaws of Darwinism, please tell me what Darwinism is. Or you referring to that agglomeration of theories and results that biologists refer to as evolution? It is science, I don’t expect science to be perfect, or the truth or proof of anything. I expect it to be able to explain the richness and variety of life on the planet and in the fossil record. I am not an expert in the field but it appears to do that. Do I think it is a perfect theory? No I don’t, but IMHO there is not one single perfect theory in all of science. What are the respectable aspects of ID proposals? I am still struggling with how it could be applied to science. I am at a loss. Perhaps you could show me. If you can’t and I can’t figure it out then why would you or I think it had any merit?
Van, bring it on. I would love to see the plans and business case for the universe. Where are these plans located? I would hope that they agreed with what we have already figured out; otherwise I would think that someone was trying to pull a fast one. Or are you referring to some old fraud of a holy relic?

Starboy

Blinn

Reminds me of a certain somebody who foolishly insisted that end-to-end chromosome fusions don't happen, in spite of the evidence.



[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]</p>

MrKrinkles

Van,

Could you explain what this "philosophy" of biologists is that you keep referring to? I am very curious to know what this is.

Thank you.

Brooks