At 09:10 AM 08/30/2000, you wrote:
>Hi FMA,
>
>ID hasn't yet become dogmatic enough to have a rigid definition. My
>definition is merely the conclusion that universe is the result of a rational
>design, rather the result of random processes. It includes the belief that
>life consists of more than matter and the impersonal physical forces we now
>recognize. (mind, creativity, spontaneity, free will are forces science does
>not presently know how to deal with)
Chris
You keep repeating this litany of claims, and yet you have not provided any
factual support for any of them. And, I've pointed out the clear falsehood
of the last one on a couple of occasions. Mind, creativity, spontaneity,
and, to a lesser extent, free will, have all been dealt with by science. I
think you don't *like* the fact that this is the case, but it is
nevertheless true. Any decent library or bookstore will have a number of
books detailing research and results in this area.
Considering that you claim (at least by implication) to oppose dogmatism,
it is strange to see you being as dogmatic on these issues as you have been
since I joined this list nearly two years ago.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 30 2000 - 13:31:28 EDT