Stephen wrote:
>This is plain false. Design can be superimposed on a backdrop of design
>and still be detected as different. For example, a work of art can be
>distinguished against a designed art gallery wall. Da Vinci's "Last Supper"
>is actually part of a wall!
the painting and the wall are against the backdrop of the natural,
undesigned world.
>Human intelligent design can be recognised against a backdrop of God's
>natural design.
so there's no way to detect "God's" natural design. You either believe it
exists or you don't.
>Therefore, there is no reason in principle why God's supernatural design
>could not be detected against a backdrop of God's natural design.
again: the wall and the painting are against the backdrop of the natural
world. There is no "super" natural world to contrast the natural world
against. Therefore "God's" design is undetectible.
>>>but were Deists. But there is no doubt that the re-establishment of design
>>>would also help Christianity enormously.
>
>SB>so you intend to use it as a recruiting tool. That's not a huge surprise.
>
>That goes without saying! I see ID as part of Christian apologetics, which
>itself is pre-evangelistic.
I utterly agree with you. ID is religion, specifically Christian religion,
not science at all.
>>SJ>It would also help society. It is pretty clear that materialistic Western
>>>society is is deep trouble.
>
>SB>actually materialist western society is doing pretty well. Crime is down.
>>Illegitimate births are *way* down. And the economy is excellent. We still
>>have to learn to treat each other with more compassion and loving-kindness,
>>but that has always been the case.
>
>Hmmm my TV must be wrong. I could have sworn I saw somewhere that >school
children were massacring each other in the USA
In a place that has frequently be cited as being saturated with
fundamentalist religion. What's wrong with this picture? A lack of
compassion and loving-kindness. I've discovered that religion--especially
conservative Christian religion--is remarkably absent in those two qualities.
>The fact is that this "cruelty to each other and a callous neglect" has
>escalated as society becomes less Christian and more materialistic.
actually the contrary is the case.
>SB>Dickens
>>and Darwin were roughly contemporary and the world that Dickens portrayed
>>was far more cruel than ours and vastly less secular.
>
>Maybe, but I doubt that one fiction writers' portrayal of one city (London)
is a
>valid comparison.
oh? was Dickens science fiction? or was his cruel world specific to London?
And do you think he is more than one example? There are lots of records of
how the extremely religious 19th century world was beyond horrible by modern
secular standards.
Susan
--------
Life is short, but it is also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb