Posted on 01/11/2006 8:28:26 PM PST by saalebhosdike
Is that anything like an prime enema?...
If you're wondering why that might be the case, well I just happen to respect the way you think.
Thanks for asking questions and sharing your thoughts with me.
Actually hosepipe, it may be very, very like. :^) And so one hesitates to elaborate a description.... :^)
Thanks so much for the chuckle!
LoL.... has a ring to it dunt it..
Yes indeed - an explanation by default. Thanks for your post!
Yes indeed, Vic, because that is what human beings are -- agents with goals -- and they've always been that way. At a time when humans have been thoroughly devalued, it seems we can no longer appreciate this indisputable fact.
As to what I intend by the word random, I simply think of it as the condition of a given system in which the system's parts are not correlated. Correlation is something specifiable by a blueprint, but a blueprint is not a "natural" object. Darwinist random mutation + natural selection is not a "blueprint," because it specifies no purpose. (Formal and final causes seem to be intimately related one to the other.) Darwinist evolution theory is literally mindless. Perhaps that is its great attraction for many people today.
But I'm just a dinosaur who does not hold to this view of a mindless, purposeless universe; or that the development of its critical components (preeminently including man, an intelligent being) could possibly be the product of a purely "random walk."
For how could a universe that contains intelligent beings have less than an intelligent cause? Which is why I aver that Darwinist theory is not "wrong" necessarily, but simply incomplete. It explains much; but not everything. FWIW
Thanks so much for your reply, Vic.
If you are a dinosaur then so am I.
Truly, if all those who are so quick to declare a thing random or purposeless would lay aside their bias for just one instant they would realize they cannot make any such declaration about a system when they do not yet know what the system "is".
But that is what happens when science sweeps half of the Aristotlean causes off the table in the interest of "methodological naturalism". The danger, of course, is if they also believe what remains is reality.
Wait just a minute, vic: When were we ever enthroned, such that now we are "dethroned?" What was that state of being, whose apparent loss (seemingly) you so bitterly complain about?
It appears that John Derbyshire does complain about it. I read him regularly in The National Review. He usually treats of scientific topics there. I thought his recent piece on intelligent design completely missed the point of the issues ID raises. Which have nothing to do with a "search for the designer," or a "proof of the existence of God." Either pursuit would be frivolous and unfruitful I'm sure, and certainly not a proper object for science.
Mr. Derbyshire is entitled to his own views, just as all the rest of us. But what he is not entitled to -- nor any of the rest of us -- is his own facts.
In my judgment FWIW, ID has been presented (and is being presented) to the public in terms of a completely confused and inchoate description. But then it is true that, on the Progressive Left, it has always been understood that whoever gets control of the language, gets control of the debate.
Thanks so much for writing, vic!
Thank you so much for your excellent essay-post! I agree with you on all of it.
True, evidenced by the word "progressive" being used for regressive ideas and solutions being used.. With, Diaelectic materialists, words are part of the material they "morph"..
When I was taught man evolved from an ape like creature in class, I realized the religion of most scientist is not compatible with being a true Christian.
Credentials?
Funny that no actual scientists ever say that. Ones with real science degress from actual accredited colleges that is.
God help us when we allow the majority rule to dictate what's in school. Curriculums would consist of Introduction to Eating at McDonalds, Advanced Britney Spears Appreciation and Creationism 101.
i.e. your version of "true Christian" is not compatible with science.
Yeah, it sure would. Whatever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.