>Well the penny has finally dropped with Glenn that "ID...can be
>applied to any religion including Islam"!
>
>But isn't that what I have been saying all along? That ID is not YEC in
>disguise (Susan and Chris' thesis) but is the common property of most,
>if not all, religions, and certainly the common property of the
>theistic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
>
>Where most religions differ is *above* the level of the existence of
>an Intelligent Designer, ie. in who the Designer is, what He has
>done, and what He wills. I can have major differences with my
>fellow IDers at those higher levels, but they are usually off-topic
>for the ID movement.
I think Steve makes an interesting point as I do think that the
thesis of ID being "YEC in disguise" is not much more than
simple-minded propaganda. I suppose it is comforting to paint
the ID people with the YEC brush, but this lazy and sloppy
thinking is exposed as such when we consider Glenn's dispute
with Steve. Of course, I am sure many YECs are also ID
proponents, but it is then illogical to reverse the logic and
argue therefore that all IDers are secret YECs.
Glenn replies to Stephen:
>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.
This is another good point. ID is not very effective apologetics
for the various reasons Glenn cites. For example, it is useless
if a Christian is trying to determine the validity of his/her religious
faith as opposed to many other religious faiths. Of course, I
do not think the strength of Christian apologetics lives or dies
on this origin issue.
Steve:
>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%.
Glenn:
>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.
That would be stretching it. When dealing with evolution and abiogenesis,
modern science quickly slips out the back door if we do ask about the
ACTUAL history. Instead, modern science is focused on possible explanations
about things that could have happened. It is true that many make the
sloppy mistake of inflating these "can happen" claims into "did happen"
claims, but these people usually abandon science when this is done.
>ID makes the same mistake YECs do--they present NO scenario for what
>ACTUALLY happened.
I couldn't agree more. But I am willing to cut the ID people some
slack for a period of time as time is needed to readjust focus and
adopt new thinking. That is, first one must deal with the issue
of whether design exists and how to provisionally detect it before
they can begin to present scenarios. So I figure I'll give them
about 20 years. If 20 years from now, the ID movement still
centers on general claims about the need for ID or the impossibility
of evolution, I'm afraid the ID movement will go the way of the
YEC movement.
But remember also that I am a relativist. The scenarios science
uses to explain what actually happened are often vague and
general. If you probe too closely, the proponents of those
scenarios will quickly start posturing about how the probing
is an unreasonable quest for precise details. And don't forget
that the whole story of abiogenesis teaches that scenarios can
be spun with the most meager of observational data (where one
is free to invent lifeforms that have never been observed simply
because they are needed to explain what is observed).
>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!
In my opinion, as long as Christians invoke something that
can be interpreted to be God, they will be banned from the
field of play. This is because the game that is played on
that field entails such a rule of censorship. The game of
science is to explain the world without reference to God.
This is not bad; it is just important for Christians to
realize that the conclusions science will reach are
dictated by its game rules. Thus, scientific "conclusions"
are useless if someone is interested in whether God was
involved with origins.
Mike