[MD] Metaphysics

[Krimel]

> [Ham]:
>> Why should I have to contend with Dawkins, a biologist who
>> (like many here) is obsessed with the notion that Creationism
>> somehow has a stranglehold on scientific investigation?
>
>[Krimel]
> Is this a joke? Creationism (I notice you use the honest term,
> at least, rather than disingenuous ID) has a stranglehold on biology?
> I think what pisses Dawkins off is the persistence of this stupid idea.
> Creationism is rooted in dogma not logic or science or anything else.
> If ever there was an example of people being held in the thrall of an
> idea for social rather than intellectual reasons this is it.

[Ham]
Creationism doesn't serve a social reason any more than a biological one. 
It simply expresses man's innate belief in a Creator -- a spiritual entity 
greater than himself by whose power he exists.  Such a belief predates 
Darwinism by thousands of years and is the foundation of the world's 
religions.  By the tone of your response, I suspect that this pisses you off

more than it does Dawkins.

[Krimel]
"Creationism" was invented by fundamentalists to put an "intellectual" face
on their crusade again the science of modern biology. It served mainly to
present a particular view of Christianity as an alternative to biology. 

Superstition does indeed predate Darwinism by thousands of years, no
argument there. 

[Ham]
Is belief in a divinity more absurd than Kurzweil's Singularity or a Big 
Bang that arose from nothing?

[Krimel]
That would depend on how the belief was justified. The justifications I have
heard, including yours, really do sound more absurd than either the age of
intelligent machines or the Big Bang.

[Ham]
You refuse to acknowledge that the universe is intelligently designed 
because it implies a Creator, yet you are a product of this design and all 
of Science thrives on its order and consistency.  I would say there's more 
than a little hypocrisy in your disbelief.

[Krimel]
I reject intelligent design because I don't see the slightest shred of
evidence to support it. Looking at the history of the movement, the
arguments presented, the agendas of those promoting it and the other beliefs
that support and flow from it, I just find it offensive. How is being
offended by ignorance and stupidity hypocritical?

BTW, still waiting for your admission that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
presents no problem to the theory of evolution.