[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: evolution
Hi Doug,
I really am disappointed in my communicative ability. If something I wrote
made you believe that I was in any way trying to suppress your opinion or
beliefs I sincerely apologize.
I am surprised at your response regarding open-mindedness. I had been taught
that an open mind was the first requirement for being a scientist. I had
expected fundamentalists to have an issue with this point. As they may argue
that if you take the Bible as the word of God you therefore do not need to
open your mind to other points of view. Faith and dogma alone may sustain a
religious point of belief. By asking everyone to accept one theory as the
only one possible and foreclosing debate on ALL others you are not helping
science. I have never before read that having an open mind precluded
accepting "solid science". Upon reflection, I am absolutely sure that is
not what I intended to propose. I interpret open-mindedness to mean the
contrary. To evaluate all of the evidence including "solid science".
You are opposed to being muzzled, I agree. But aren't you advocating doing
the same thing to the other side. Some people are bound by their faith to
reject scientific argument or even factual evidence. But as a man of science
you should not be one of them. If I propose multiple points of origin for
life rather than a single one should I be attacked for undermining science
because I believe that the current model of evolution is imperfect? How
about if I were to propose the concept that there are influences on
evolution which we can not yet measure? Does this make me a heretic in the
brave new world of science?
How long was the theory of the atom around before quantum mechanics better
explained carbon bonding? If scientists had precluded debate where would we
be now?
Now even though a theory is generally scientifically accepted it remains a
theory until it is proven to be a fact. Evolution may be a very well
established theory with a great deal of scientific support but it is still a
theory which may be subject to evolution itself. Even sub atomic physicists
have not closed the books on research. Just because evolutionists have been
under attack for a long time does not give them a special exemption from the
scientific process or free discussion.
As to a debate of religion vs. science no one can or should win! Would the
world really be a better place without either?
Doug, you are a bright and well intentioned fellow. You firmly believe in
your theory. Maybe you have someone or something which you need to defend it
from. But open-mindedness is not your enemy. If your theory is right, it may
be your best friend.
I had no intention for weighing in on the original discussion as my opinion
on the subject is entirely irrelevant. I still do not intend to do so on
list. I for one am open to at least listening to any theory on the subject
which someone would like to propose and defend. But as much as I respect
your opinion I have no intention of forgoing my right to express one should
I ever decide to do so.
I stepped in to this discussion to try to encourage understanding and
tolerance as well as the constructive and intelligent exchange of ideas. I
have apparently failed and am now withdrawing.
I am on the other hand still looking for data on skewed sex ratios in
Rivulus species.
Best regards,
-RJ-
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-killietalk at aka_org [mailto:owner-killietalk at aka_org]On
Behalf Of Doug Karpa-Wilson
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:34 PM
To: killietalk at aka_org
Subject: RE: evolution
>Discussion of a theory or a particular part of a theory is a good thing.
>Some people call this "open mindedness". If one is completely convinced
that
>he/she has the only correct answer then debate is unnecessary and useless.
>Long ago the Buddha was asked by a disciple of a competing religion, how to
>make a decision in the absence of convincing proof.
>If someone wants to discuss a theory rationally and with an open mind. I am
>game. Why not?
Sometimes when 130 years of collection of overwhelming proof is accumulated
and the other side continues to cry "but it's still wrong" or "it's still
not proven" then clearly something other that rational debate is going on.
I don't believe for a second that any of the folks who call this into
question would ever consider allowing themselves to be persuaded by
rationality and evidence. If they were, we wouldn't be having this debate.
In the modern context it's fairly clear this debate isn't driven at all
by an interest in scientific inquiry. If that were the case, it would have
been settled long ago, much like the debate about whether or not matter is
composed of atoms. There's a tendency to try present evolution as a
scientifically controversial theory. It isn't. Not even close. The folks
who think there's something wrong with it arent' the scientists, so yes,
this is a case of the religious community trying to muzzle the scientific
one, pure and simple.
Let's not go around denying solid science for the sake of "open-mindedness"
Doug
Doug Karpa-Wilson
1821 S. Maxwell St.
Bloomington, IN 47401
---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net
---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
References: