Re: Fwd: Identity of the ID designer

From: John Burgeson (hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Dec 15 2002 - 15:29:55 EST

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: Historical evidence for Jesus"

    Some time ago (I've been on an extended vacation), in response to a post by
    George, I wrote:

    >What I want to do is remove the debate (about ID) entirely away from
    >discussions of the
    >IDers themselves, what motivates them -- and just talk about the ideas.
    >
    >To limit the discussion only to OOLOE (Origin of Life on Earth) is to
    >simply confine it to that part
    >of the material world we know most about.
    >
    >An archaelogist finds a non-living item "X" and declares that it appears to
    >have been created by an intelligence, and generally that claim is taken
    >seriously for many items "X1, X2, ... " Sometimes, however, item X15 (for
    >instance) is subsequently judged to have been created through inanimate
    >natural causation. And reasonable scientists then debate that.
    >
    >A biologist finds a living item "Y" and declares that it appears to have
    >been created by an intelligence. Generally that claim is NOT taken
    >seriously
    >for items "Y1, Y2, ..." even by IDers. But sometimes an IDer will take it
    >seriously for item Y15 (for instance).
    >
    >So the division point seems to be between non-living items (or items that
    >appear to be non-living) and living items, presumably on the basis that to
    >create a living item of any sort is something beyond the ken of modern
    >science and therefore ruled out a priori.
    >
    >I don't like a priori rules ( as you know) and so I cannot be comfortable
    >with the division, at least as I have stated it.

        George responded by continuing to discuss the IDers motivations and
    incorrect (in his opinion) theology.

    Once again I ask if we can talk about the science, and not about either the
    theology or the motivations of Dembski, Johnson, et. al. I am sure that to
    many those subjects are interesting; they are not interesting to me.

    My question above was not, as I can detect, addressed since I posted it a
    month ago. I think it is a lot more interesting than questions of IDers
    theological beliefs or motivations. But perhaps, of course, only to me.

    Burgy

    www.burgy.50megs.com

    _________________________________________________________________
    Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Dec 15 2002 - 23:44:08 EST