Cliff:
>Why would a one-time expansion support ID, except that the bible doesn't
>mention oscillating-universe theories? And why would an oscillating pattern
>have to be eternal? And why would anything rule out creation? Couldn't the
>designer design an oscillating universe?
Hi Cliff,
I have the impression that Steve cites many articles merely because he is
interested in science, all science, not just that which supports ID. I hope
supporters of ID never fall into the trap where many Darwinists find
themselves, where defending a theory becomes more important than doing
science. I believe nature is the result of rational design, but if I were a
scientist, I would have no interest in developing evidence (and certainly not
proof) of the concept. I would have no interest in convincing committed
materialists. Actually, all scientists who search for logical explanations
of biological systems could be said to be working within a concept of ID,
even those who have somehow convinced themselves rational design can occur by
accident. Labeling part of nature "junk" is more consistent with those who
deny the existence of design. Initiating discussion of design in nature has
encountered obstacles by those committed to "chance", and apparently
determined to prohibit widening the discussion. However I think the genie is
now out of the bottle. I say let those scientists who believe the universe
is the result of chance pursue their science however they choose. I
wouldn't waste my breath suggesting this to many participants on this board,
but you impress me as being more open minded than most.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 28 2000 - 12:37:41 EDT