Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site trwatf.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!trwatf!root From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: A new voice. Message-ID: <1054@trwatf.UUCP> Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 17:02:11 EDT Article-I.D.: trwatf.1054 Posted: Tue Jul 23 17:02:11 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 20:58:46 EDT References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <285@phri.UUCP> <358@scgvaxd.UUCP> Reply-To: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA. Lines: 51 In article <358@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > > I can just as easily say that I believe in creation because species > seem to have a common design. This best explains the existance of such > complex structures as a brain, heart, and sexual reproduction organs. You could say that by assuming that a creator would make his designs reasonably similar. But there's no reason to promote this view about that of eveolution. What's more... the evolutionary model seems to be supported by the facts. Your thesis has no support or evidence other than what you would like to be. > 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? No metaphysical explanation is required. We simply don't know yet what these things we call emotions et al really are. And if you are claiming that since we cannot explain these emotions there must therefore have been a creator, well how did HIS emotions and existance develop? You can't prove the creation model by "debunking" the evolutionary one. > Did man "reason" just a little at first, than "reason" a lot later? > 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? No... it's superior because any 5-year old can hypothesis a supernatural explanation and he will most likely be wrong. The tooth fairy cannot endur the test of science no matter how strongly he believes in it. SO the most obvious and appealing explanation isn't always the right one. > Sounds to me like you want to believe in Evolution! I guess that makes > us the same! If you want to believe in the truth or in the best-fit model that's probably a reasonable statement. There's a difference between wanting to believe in something because it is the truth, and believing in something only because you want something to be true. Evolution was derived from facts. "Creation science" was not. Simple as that. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Ahhhhhh... the smell of cuprinol and mahogany. It excites me to... acts of passion... acts of... ineptitude."