Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!dan
From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: A new voice.
Message-ID: <364@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 22:06:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.364
Posted: Tue Jul 23 22:06:09 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 06:52:48 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <285@phri.UUCP> <358@scgvaxd.UUCP> <617@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 81

In article <617@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>In article <358@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) 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.

 Why isn't 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.)

 Once again, an attack on my reasoning, with no explanation! Again, why
 isn't it valid reasoning? Dishonest? Please explain!

>>  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.

 Ahhh! Now I understand what valid reasoning is! Quote a book title!

>>  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.

  This is invalid reasoning. If you could form an hypothesis that was correct
  from the very start, would this make it inferior since you couldn't
  improve it? Why must a supernatural hypothesis hamper efforts to find
  a naturalistic one. That is your idea, not mine. A supernatural hypothesis
  can be considered as long as naturalistic ones are not yet perfect. I
  would think that this would promote more research into the naturalistic
  ones. In the meantime, supernatural explanations can be considered and
  evidence could be gathered to support them or invalidate them.

>>  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

  This last paragraph shows how bad you really need to believe in
  naturalistic explanations! The thought of considering the supernatural
  as a possibility sends you into a fit of arrogant insults!

  Why does it frighten you so much to consider the possibility of
  the supernatural? Frightened enough to attack me as a person!

  Am I a threat to your great ascent into perfected humanity? Do I remind
  you of the fears and apprehensions of the unknown that you have buried
  beneath your degree?

  What about those learned men of the universities that agree with me?
  In essence, you are saying that we are different because I don't
  agree with you!


					    Dan