Reply to: RE: ID vs.?
Hi Bertvan
I don't think that I did a good job of getting my point across in my last post so let me try again. I don't have anything against the idea of ID. In fact, I can't help but believe that the universe was created by some supernatural deity. But, that is my belief based upon faith with no scientific data to support it. I would be thrilled if the basic hypothesis of ID was shown to be scientifically valid.
However, that is not what the leaders of the ID movement are engaged in. They call ID science, but refuse to hold to the standards of science. Basically, the purpose of the movement is to get rid of naturalistic science. I would say that they are trying to prevent others from speaking out in opposition. The leaders will say that ID is a scientific enterprise, but then have a meeting with congressmen to get ID taught in the classroom. This is not how scientists operate.
There is nothing 'McCarthyistic' about my views. This is the first time that I am aware of that people are being opposed not for what they have done, but for what they won't do. IDers say that they have empirical data to back up their claims, but have refused to make it public (I know because we've asked for it). IDers say what they are doing is science, but refuse to pass simple scientific experiments that would test the detection of design (I know because I've posed them before).
You should go to the ARN website. It is not opponents to ID that have brought up the space alien scenario, it is the IDers that use it to respond to the notion of God as the designer. Behe, Meyer, and Dembski have all said that ID doesn't make any claims on the nature of the designer and that ID is not all about God. There are others on the website that use the same claim. However, Behe, Meyer, and Dembski have all made statements (Dembski even gave a summer seminar) that shows that they believe the designer is the Christian God.
I would love to see some real scientific research on intelligent design being conducted without the huge sociopolitical agenda of the Discovery Institute. But, until the agenda is dropped, I cannot (will not) accept the ID movement. I just don't like being lied to (and yes, they have lied to me).
Cliff Hamrick
Bertvan wrote:
>
>>>(Bertvan) ID allows the possibility of a god, but does not require one. >
>Cliff H.: >>I've heard this argument from IDers before. ID is
>>all about God. This notion of aliens breeding life and >>then depositing it on Earth does not fit into the ID paradigm. >> In that paradigm, the only logical question is
> >'Who designed the aliens'? And then, "Who designed
>>the designer of the aliens"? Within the ID >>paradigm, this question has to asked over and over
>>until we reach the first race of aliens of the universe.
> >Then we have to ask 'Who designed them?" Within the ID
>>paradigm, the notion of life arising through
> >purely naturalistic means can't happen, so God must have created them. >>ID is all about God. If the aliens could arise through naturalistic
>>means, then why didn't life on Earth and every other planet before it arise
> >through the same means?
>
>Bertvan
>Hi Cliff H,
>My question was what is the belief that opposes ID. From your reply I assume >it is that life arose through purely naturalistic means. I am not "opposed" >to such a theory. I just don't believe it. Are you willing to put everyone >who is skeptical of abiogenesis in the ID camp? We would be delighted. In >any case, I encourage anyone who believes life arose naturalistically to >pursue it vigorously. I question anyone's right to declare abiogenesis a >fact until it has been demonstrated. (I haven't heard any ID advocates >seriously pushing space aliens. That's mainly done by ID critics looking for >a straw man.)
>
>Cliff:
>>Of course, the fact that almost all of the main proponents of ID
>>(Johnson, Dembski, Meyer, Pearcey) are
> >evangelical Christians should give it away. >
>Bertvan:
>This is pure McCarthyism, in my opinion. While you say you have nothing >against God, I assume you do have something against evangelical Christians. >(I do acknowledge that there are probably few atheists supporting ID.)
>
>Cliff:
> >Though all of these people coyly pay lip service to the notion >>of some designer other than God, they all
> >admit that the designer is God. >>If you honestly believe that the designer could be
>>anything but God, then the leadership of the ID >>movement is using you for their own ends. I'm not against
>>ID because it allows for the possibility of a
> >God. I don't have problems with the possibility of a God.
>>In fact, I'm certain that there is one. But, I do
> >have problems with people distorting science and the
>>truth to manipulate people and the society they live
> >in. That's why I'm against ID.
>
>Bertvan:
>Most people are either atheists or accept some religious belief. We >agnostics are a tiny minority. However I suspect many of us will be >attracted to the ID movement. Has it occurred to you that we might be using >them for our own ends? You see, I don't really have any objections to >Darwinists, or anyone else, "distorting science and the truth to manipulate >people and the society they live in". Just so long as no one tries to >prevent others from speaking out in opposition. ( Agnostics aren't interested >in questions about God. We regard them as unanswerable.) If you can >believe in a "Big Bang" without inserting god in the theory, some of us can >see design in nature without worrying about where it came from.
>
>Bertvan
>http://members.aol.com/bertvan
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Return-Path: <evolution-owner-Cliff_Hamrick=baylor.edu@udomo3.calvin.edu>
>Received: from ccis08.baylor.edu (ccis08.baylor.edu [129.62.1.2])
> by ccis01.baylor.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA14299
> for <Cliff_Hamrick@STUMAIL.BAYLOR.EDU>; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:34:46 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: from lists.calvin.edu (udomo3.calvin.edu)
> by baylor.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33495)
> with SMTP id <01JTI56OO04GFES7DT@baylor.edu> for
> Cliff_Hamrick@STUMAIL.BAYLOR.EDU (ORCPT rfc822;Cliff_Hamrick@baylor.edu); Mon,
> 28 Aug 2000 12:34:44 CDT
>Received: (qmail 198 invoked by uid 27); Mon, 28 Aug 2000 17:34:05 +0000
>Received: (qmail 191 invoked from network); Mon, 28 Aug 2000 17:34:04 +0000
>Received: from ursa.calvin.edu (153.106.4.1) by udomo3.calvin.edu with SMTP;
> Mon, 28 Aug 2000 17:34:04 +0000
>Received: from imo-r20.mx.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162])
> by ursa.calvin.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e7SHYaB21987 for
> <evolution@calvin.edu>; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:34:36 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from Bertvan@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.)
> id e.84.a190e17 (1558) for <evolution@calvin.edu>; Mon,
> 28 Aug 2000 13:34:19 -0400 (EDT)
>Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:34:19 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Bertvan@aol.com
>Subject: ID vs.?
>Sender: evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
>To: evolution@calvin.edu
>Message-id: <84.a190e17.26dbfc9b@aol.com>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: AOL 5.1 for Windows sub 34
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>Precedence: bulk
>Delivered-to: evolution@lists.calvin.edu
>Status: >
Common sense isn't.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 28 2000 - 16:00:12 EDT