Derbyshire contra Bethell
- From: "Glend" <interelectromagnetic@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Jan 2006 08:23:17 -0800
I didn't even read what Bethell wrote, since at some point one quits
giving the benefit of the doubt to those who don't or can't learn. But
here's a portion of Derbyshire's response to Bethell at National Review
Online:
"(2) Creationists like Tom give off the rather strong impression that
they consider themselves to be the only people in the world who are not
philosophical materialists. This is not so - obviously, glaringly,
deafeningly, thunderingly not so. I myself am not a philosophical
materialist, and I don't know what grounds Tom has for supposing that I
am. I have made this plain numerous times, on NRO and elsewhere. I even
count myself a religious person, and have said that numerous times too,
most recently here. Tom does not confront one fact that honest
creationists really ought to confront, but never do: the fact that
numerous religious, even very deeply religious, people are
well-informed about modern biological theory yet perfectly happy with
it. I have pointed before to this gentleman, who is not only a
thorough-going "Darwinist" (this is a word only creationists use, by
the way - I have never heard a scientist utter it, nor "Newtonist,"
nor "Einsteinist," either) but also an ordained Dominican priest. I
suppose Tom considers Prof. Ayala to be a cold-blooded "materialist."
Talk about holier than thou!
"(3) "Denying design when we see it before our eyes and denying free
will when we experience it directly..." One of the main reasons for the
emergence of science was the slow, painful discovery that what we see
before our eyes and what we experience directly cannot always be
trusted. My eyes tell me plainly that the earth is flat at large scales
and the sun and moon revolve around it. Careful scientific
investigation showed both things false, and we are now wiser than our
remote ancestors were. Similarly, a clever neurophysiologist, or even a
good stage hypnotist, could cause Tom to "experience" many things
"directly" that are not facts in the world. "This sure looks like it
was designed by an intelligent agent, doesn't it?" may be dispositive
for an I.D. proponent (it is in fact, so far as I can tell, the
I.D.-ers' only "argument"); to a real scientist, it is a challenge. In
any case, we know only one instance of an intelligent agency -
ourselves. A single data point is not much of a basis for
generalization. As for free will: I have not denied it, do not deny it,
and currently have no intention of denying it - though I would not
deny that it is deniable. "
The full exchange may be found here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ootc200601110906.asp
It seems to me that more sanity prevails now, as opposed to before the
Dover verdict. Intransigent old fools growl out the same old phrases,
but competent critics of ID make good responses which increasingly
dominate the exchanges, including at National Review. Bethell's bleats
seem to fade increasingly into white noise, even for the people who
don't understand ID, though they promote it--because it becomes obvious
even to the ignorant that he has nothing beyond a few sound bites.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Crossing a Vast "Neutral Gap" in One Step
- Next by Date: Re: Trivia about clouds
- Previous by thread: Big creationist/ID/anti-atheist article doing the rounds...
- Next by thread: OT: Seen on-campus today
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
