To: Steven P Crawford
Hi Steve,
I'm not really clear about your objection to ID. (Or to Stephen's version of
it) ID probably means something a little different to everyone who discusses
it. So far, no one is trying to ram any version of it down anyone's throats
as "scientific truth". However, everyone interested in ID seem to agree on
one point: skepticism of random mutation and natural selection as an
explanation of nature's diversity-skepticism of Darwinism- of evolution
without plan, purpose, meaning or design. If ever ID becomes rigidly
defined, it will probably become just another dogma.
You speak of "undecidables". If they exist, and as an agnostic I suspect
they do, they probably can't be addressed by reason, logical arguments or
mathematical formulas. Perhaps the origin of the design happens to be one of
those "undecidables". I realize you believe differently. You are convinced
the designer must be your God, and you present a logical argument for such a
belief. I respect that argument. The agnostic belief that the origin of
the design is "undecidable" could also be argued. As for defining "science",
I object to anyone claiming the authority to impose any such definition upon
everyone with a desire to investigate nature. Science might be defined as
any investigation of reality. If someone wants to define science as
excluding the "supernatural", they must exclude free will, spontaneity, and
creativity. I am convinced they all exist as a part of reality. However
all three are at the present time"supernatural" in that science has no
explanation for them - no way to measure or define them.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 04 2000 - 12:18:04 EDT