Cliff:
>This species of ID is new to me. I thought the overall designer, over
>and above the whole system, and distinct from agents within the system,
>was a sine a qua non.
Hi Cliff:
Many people argue "design" without proposing a designer, Mike Gene, for
instance. Most, like Denton and Behe argue that "design" can be acknowledged
without any speculation about the nature of any designer.
Bertvan:
>> And I have developed a distaste for the arrogant intolerance of
>>most people who promote materialism.
Cliff:
>I have never seen the term 'materialism' promoted by those you call
>'materialists'.
Bertvan: I should have said I've developed a distaste for the arrogant
intolerance of most people defending Darwinism. Some of the beliefs and
attitudes I attribute to materialists might also be held by people who do not
call themselves materialists, but if I've called anyone a materialist who
didn't readily acknowledge the characterization, I do apologize. I try not
to get personal.
Bertvan:
>.> People in the ID movement dare to look beyond materialism.
Cliff:
>But they're the only ones who use the term! They are hung up on
>it, working scientists are not.
Bertvan: It is probably true that all IDs are skeptical of materialism, but
are IDs the only critics of materialism? If IDs are hung up on materialism,
critics of ID are hung up on religion. I'd like to think working scientists
don't see a religion threatening them from behind every bush, but I'm not
sure there are many working scientists participating in these discussions.
Cliff:
>Isn't there something wrong with calling people something they don't
>call themselves? You can call yourself anything you want and I will
>accept that and refer to you as that. I won't apply terms to you that
>you don't apply to yourself.
Bertvan:
Given a choice between ID and Darwinism, I choose ID.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 19 2000 - 18:03:43 EDT