Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: A new voice. Message-ID: <368@spar.UUCP> Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 12:58:59 EDT Article-I.D.: spar.368 Posted: Wed Jun 26 12:58:59 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 28-Jun-85 02:07:30 EDT References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 52 Summary: > 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. > > 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. Be careful now. Don't give me any > subjective answers like commonality of species which can either > imply common ancestor or common design. Give me a real solid > concrete reason to believe that you and I are accidents and > serve no real purpose. > > Dan Evolution does not necessarily imply that `you are an accident' nor does not imply that `you have no purpose'. Nor does it imply that `there was no designer'. Those are metaphysical statements by definition offlimits to science. Would you have things otherwise? Evolution only attempts to describe as much of the mechanism by which the current complexity of life came about as is scientifically possible. 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. 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. If your difficulty with evolution is that the theory lacks some essential element, then we concur on this point. An independent consciousness can only appear to act as if by chance when scrutinized by a purely objective viewpoint. 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!!! -michael