Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>[Note the clever use of words by Scott contrastinge atheism with young-Earth
>creationism, as though they are the only two alternatives. By admitting that
>there is a "debate between theism and materialism" she "legitimate", tacitly
>concedes they are opposites. But then she says any such debate between the
>two "shouldn't take place in the classroom", even thought materialism is
>to continue to be taught unopposed "in the classroom".]
Intramural battles are the nastiest of all. But where are the battles between
YEC and ID? I've never read of any such debates at all. This is why people
think it's the same old religionists doing their same old thing.
If 'materialists' are the enemies of ID, who are the friends of ID? Will the
average religious person embrace the agnostic view that 'Well, it might
have been God, it might have been green scaly space aliens, who knows?'
'ID'--is it really that good a term? In common parlance people speak of
'designer clothes' and 'designer furniture', meaning custom creations
by established artisans. In this sense, 'designer universe' sounds silly,
it implies a universe that is particularly chic.
Maybe the 'I', the 'intelligent' is the important thing. So a more logical
construction, making 'intelligent' the substantive part, might be
'designing intelligence'. But that's no good, because it shifts the focus
back to 'who or what is this intelligence?' I must presume that ID
advocates much prefer a construction that puts the emphasis on the
inexplicability (thus far) of complexities in nature, and avoids an
emphasis on what they are really about.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 13 2000 - 13:20:44 EST