Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: A new voice.
Message-ID: <617@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 11:46:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.617
Posted: Mon Jul 15 11:46:10 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 07:26:36 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <285@phri.UUCP> <358@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 47

In article <358@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
> >I believe in evolution precisely
> >because it best explains such things as the commonality of features
> >among species.  Therefore, I am not looking for "A REASON" to believe
> >in evolutionary theory.
> 
>  I can just as easily say that I believe in creation because species
>  seem to have a common design.

You can say it.  But that doesn't make it valid reasoning.

>  This best explains the existance of such
>  complex structures as a brain, heart, and sexual reproduction organs.

Once again, a bald statement, with no reasoning.  (And where you have 
presented a case in the past, it has been shown to be bad, if not
dishonest.)

>  Biological evolution seems inadequate for the development of emotions
>  and the ability to reason. In fact, a metaphysical explanation for them
>  is required. Can you describe the physical development of love, hate, or
>  joy? What were these emotions before they evolved into the present ones?
>  Did man "reason" just a little at first, than "reason" a lot later?

Read "On Human Nature" by E. O. Wilson for some contemorary thought on these
matters.  Already we can envision evolutionary origins for emotions and
reasoning: rigor will probably follow in the future.

>  Yes, evolution has it's answers to these questions. But, are they more
>  or less reasonable? More or less rational or logical? I believe they are
>  not. In fact, they are very incomplete. Is any naturalistic hypothesis
>  superior than a supernatural one just because it is naturalistic?

Yes.  Because a supernatural "hypothesis" cannot be improved.  You're stuck
with it, unchanging, hampering efforts to find naturalistic hypotheses.

>  Sounds to me like you want to believe in Evolution! I guess that makes
>  us the same!

These two sentences show how complete your ignorance of science really is,
and thus how truely different we are.  You, a twentieth century equivalent
of a superstitious peasant claiming to be just like the learned men at
the universities.  Because of your (scientific) illiteracy, you don't
understand the differences.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh