Well, Stephen, for one, being a christian, I am more interested in
Christianity having a good apologetical defense. While I have muslims in my
extended family and have a deep respect for them, I do not believe their
religion to be correct and thus, I don't have to deal with their
apologetical problems.
>The trouble is that the 10% who believe there is no Designer have,
>on that point, effectively taken over science, the government, the
>law, education, and the media because they have exploited these
>higher level differences among the 90%.
They have done this because those who believe in a designer have not been
effective at presenting a scenario for the past history of the earth.
Modern Science presents a scenario that is purported to be the ACTUAL
history of the universe. It fits the observational data. ID makes the same
mistake YECs do--they present NO scenario for what ACTUALLY happened. Thus
they, like the YECs will be relegated to the sidelines of science. Until
Christians finally figure out that there is a need for a workable scenario
the 10% will always have sway. The game is being played and we are not even
on the field!
>
>It is the goal of the ID movement to unify the 90% on this one issue:
>the very existence of an Intelligent Designer.
>
>How Glenn can say that that "won't do Christianity any good" is
>beyond me. While re-establishing ID in science, government, the
>law, education, etc, will do Christianity's religious competitors good
>as well, it won't do more good to them than it will do to Christianity.
Big deal. UFO buffs who believe that alien races seeded the universe with
life are also ID proponents. And the ID movement doesn't and can't
distinguish between the alien-designer concept and the God-designer
concept. Do you think the ID movement will allow one of the UFO buffs to be
on the same stage with them?
>
>And it *has* to be better than the present situation where the
>existence of an Intelligent Designer is almost completely excluded
>from these areas of public life leaving the non-existence of an
>Intelligent Designer virtually the `established religion'!
No, it doesn't have to be better. It is another false rabbit trail that
will lead nowhere. THey don't tell us what actually happened in the past
and that is the game that must be played. And by the way, I am a member of
the ID movement because I believe in a Designer. But if I stop there, then
I haven't done a thing.
>
>But apart from these considerations, if we in the 90% believe it is
>the *truth* that there is an Intelligent Designer, why should not all
>of us in the 90% (including TEs), want to see ID prevail over the 10%
>who hold a virtual public monopoly on what to us is an untruth?
We simply can't prevail until we present a workable scenario of past
history!
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution