From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: They want to debate Phillip Johnson
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:54:59 GMT

I apologize for not attacking, er, responding to this
posting by the wise Kalki earlier -- the local newsreading
system is limping along badly.  But I feel I must try.
I really must.  Kalki to me is like the bell to Pavlov's
dog -- no content, but I salivate everytime I hear him
anyway!

Kalki Dasa (system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us) wrote:

: It is true that most of the participants in this newsgroup take some 
: form of Darwinism as absolute fact. Furthermore, most of them 
: believe that it has been "proven scientifically" and therefore doubt is
: not to be taken seriously.

	Please don't say "most of us", Kalki.  Most of us have an
understanding of science that knows very little is "proven".  Has
garnered much experimental support, yes.  Is supported by theoretical
arguments and evidence from other scientific disciplines, yes.  Is
currently the best theory around, yes.  Proven -- no.

: For example, I am a member of the Hare Krishna movement, and I am 
: vigorously opposed to Darwinism as an explanation for the diversity 
: of species. My position is that the species of life were created, more
: or less in their presently observed forms, by a transcendental supreme
: being, God. Yet I receive no support whatsoever from the fundamentalist
: Christian "creationists" in this newsgroup, who regard Krishna
: consciousness as the work of the devil.

	So you think that all of the non-scientific fantasy-weavers should
get together and attempt to create a critical mass of stupidity?
Luckily, vigilant CWACKers are standing by, ready to uphold the strong
tradition of intelligent inquiry of the Christian mind, jousting
valiantly against the moronic hordes of blind and brainless followers,
and defending our right to believe in both God and evolution.

: The basis of Darwinism is materialism, i.e. the proposition that 
: there is nothing in existence except matter and material energy, and 
: nothing ever influences matter except other matter or material energy.

	Ahem... I'd rather believe that nothing can be detected
influencing matter except other matter or material energy.  Doesn't
mean it's not happening -- it's just outside the realm of science.

: The basis of creationism is that there is something else in addition 
: to matter. There is a "spiritual" element, which is not detectable by 
: scientific instruments, but which is nevertheless real, and which 
: exerts a definite controlling influence on material phenomena.

	This is the basis of creationism?  Whoa!  And here I thought
it was insisting that the Earth was created in seven calendar days
or sprang fully-formed from the head of Vishnu -- I forget.  But wait!
"Not detectable by scientific instruments"  -- did you SAY that,
Kalki?  That's right.  Oh darn, then you say this "spiritual
element" exerts a definite controlling influence on material
phenomena.  I almost thought you had seen the light.
	If it exerts a "definite controlling influence on
material phenomena" and yet is "not detectable" by scientific
instruments, how can you define the influence as "definite"?
I'd rather have faith in things unseen.

: Neither of these positions is arrived at by "science." They are
: world-views, grand philosophical statements about what is reality, based
: on an individual's assessment of his own desires and experiences.

	I'll accept this.   Science, and the theory of evolution, should
be distinguished from the philosophical trappings of "greater Darwinism"
(tm).  Just as long as you promise to distinguish religion, which is
certainly what being Hare Krishna is, from science.  All science and
every scientific endeavour.

: Well, yes, but the things that Darwinists regard as having a "reasonable
: basis for disagreement" are limited to technical details that do not
: threaten the grand Darwinistic world-view. If you limit yourself to
: these minor details, you will be loved by the Darwinists, but as soon as
: you attempt to draw any broad negative conclusions about the grand
: Darwinistic world-view, no matter how many technical points you have
: scored, you will immediately become the subject of a browbeating "flame
: war," and all your careful attention to detail will count for nothing.

	If the grand Darwinistic world view says that I cannot have
a personal belief in Jesus Christ, then I am negatively inclined toward
the grand Darwinistic world view.  Fortunately, I can distinguish the
theory of evolution (and abiogenesis -- just to needle you, Kalki, my
bald buddy) from the grand Darwinistic world view.

: Sincerely,
: Kalki Dasa


============================================================
|  James G. Acker                       Occasional Genius  |
|  jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov        Regular Swimmer    |
|                                                          |
|  "A good time to get revenge on your enemy is when he    |
|   is having an orgasm -- at least if you are a stump-    |
|   tailed macaque."                                       |
============================================================

Newsgroups: talk.origins