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