Alan Kay wrote:

> Yep.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan
>
> -
> >But the bottom line is that these god-as-designer people will force the rest
> >of us to refine our language, or we unwillingly lend them credibility. In a
> >sense we should be grateful to them for refining our own position.
> >
> >Henrik

Use of Language
-----------

Exactly! I have no problem with evolution, per se it is the language... for
example... ...

"The process of evolution created the animals, both their
bodies and their habits ..."

here the verb is "created", creating is an activity, and evolution becomes the
creator! I am not trying to get into a mad debate just illustrate a few
things... on the looseness of the presentation as Henrik says! (But creating is
more than what evolution does, refining, shaping yes but not creating).

What I would prefer to see is people using language to say what they really
mean, something like this "If we hold the theory of evolution to be true, which
it is likely to be given the philosphical viewpoint or axiom that assumes there
is no outside agent then it is likely that the process of evolution evolved the
animals, both their bodies and their habits ..."

the verb "to evolve" is derived from its relationship to the process of
evolution, and therefore by definition the right word to use. I know it is a bit
circular, but I dont see the problem. A designer designs, a creator creates, and
evolution evolves. I know it is a bit dull...

Scientists - Help me explain my experience
----------------------------

Look guys try and see it from my point of view ok, have some compassion on me
please. Standing within the axiom of no outside agent (as an aetheist) ,  I have
met God, and found this to be an observed and repeatable experience! I can even
propose "scientific" measures (but since God is not physical a thermometer just
will not cut it). The problem is that the framework of traditional scientific
axiom is not broad enough to support my experience. I cannot deny it but I am
not allowed by science to try and explain it. "If it talks like God, acts like
God,... it must be a figment of your imagination" is not a very helpful, or
intellectually coherant approach. This is why those in science end up in debates
like this that are consistently going nowhere. I have stood on the rock of
science all of my life, but according to the traditional axiom one single
undenyable supernatural experience should be enough to proove that axiom wrong.
If that occurs I am said to have committed intellectual suicide, and scientists
themselves throw you off the rock into the sea. If scientists wonder why they
have to deal with these argumentative types, it is because we are searching for
meaning in a universe, using our five senses, just like everyone else, but the
naturalistic scientific community will not let us onto their island. Whereas I
could pray that God could show me how evolution works. (you can join me in my
camp, but I cant go into yours)  Yet at the same time if we are to understand
reality with integrity the scientific method is still the correct approach. The
naturalistic axiom is arguably locking beleivers out of science and I am
somewhat upset by this, because I love science. Of course the irony of this is
that "Newton", "Pascal", etc etc were all beleivers.

Non-Contradiciton

>>Of course, science doesn't really subscribe to the "law of noncontradiction".

Hmmm, but any discussion or logical debate needs to be carried out within a
single frame of reference in which the law of non-contradiction does apply. Many
people cant logically debate within one frame of reference, surely we have to be
adept at the easy stuff before we start trying to grapple with Einstein!

> Well, Richard just doesn't view the world that way at all. He is a
> loving person who loves other people (such as his wife and daughter,
> Douglas Adams, and many others). He just doesn't think the universe
> has a cosmic purpose for humans. He *does*  believe that we humans
> have purpose, and far beyond mere survival.
>
Apologies Due to Richard
----------------

Ok, I am sorry if am not too careful how I express myself. I did not mean to say
that Richard dawkins as a person was incabaple of love, I am not trying to be
personal in this. What I am saying is that his "philosphical" foundation does
not give any basis for hope or this kind of emotional response. Confronted with
the scientific fact that in a 100 million years neither you nor I will be here.
Can you give me a good reason for not committing suicide/murder right now, based
upon the scientific principles that we spend so much time talking about. These
are the real issues that I face in counselling people every day.

Real Life
------

The reality of the situation that I face is that when I counsel suicidal
individuals, I can give them hope and I can see an observable change in their
lives. I am now experimenting with using chat rooms for this as a means to
quantitively collect data and reduce the number of variables! Unfortunately for
science I use entirely supernatural means to acheive my goals. But science
(which I value) is not serving me with a complete enough philosophical framework
in which to describe to you how or why this works!

Perhaps if I restate my case like this, "let us look at where we are going, and
why,
rather than where we have come from."

I am suggesting that the most limited view of where we have come from, will
limit our ability to hypothesise in the other direction.

>Let us not only teach our children to think, but give them something to
>apply it to and to learn the lessons of history. The reason that dawkins
>philosophy is devoid of life, is that the "closed system" that he
>experiments with, and his view of the world has no spirit in it (having
>no means to measure beauty, or joy it may as well not exist.) Learning
>from our forebares, understanding history, not as a mere collection of
>facts but as personal experience of living and breathing and
>experiencing life.

My aim in starting this debate is not to go over and over the same old ground,
but to try and spark off something new and vibrant. I guess the best way forward
is to demonstrate it by example. Therein lies a real challenge!

pushing the boundaries

Keith