Your posts seem to indicate you each have your own thoughts, and your
differences often concern definitions of terms, such as "evolution",
"supernatural", "random", "purpose", "intelligence", "meaning",
"macro-evolution" , the difference between "apparent" design and "actual"
design, etc. However most of you appear united on one point:
Most of you are passionately opposed to ID.
I read the ID discussion board. (Many of them are obviously scientists, and
their discussions are usually too technical for much participation by me.)
They also each have their own ideas about ID, and they are also united on one
point:
ID allows the possibility of a god, but does not require one. (Just as a
"big bang" allows the possibility of a "creator", but doesn't require one.)
ID supporters are all skeptical of Darwinism, (RM&NS as an explanation of
macro evolution) but apparently few people still support orthodox Darwinism -
except maybe Susan. Perhaps the controversy will eventually play itself out
in the following manner: Most of those who can tolerate the possible
existence of a god will call themselves ID supporters, and those who to whom
whole idea of a god is repugnant will call themselves something else. You
need a label to rally around, but you would probably do better to choose
something other than "Darwinism".
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 26 2000 - 12:17:45 EDT