>BV>ID allows the possibility of a god, but does not require one.
CH>I've heard this argument from IDers before. ID is all about God. .
SJ: This is simply not so. ID is only about detecting *design* not the
*designer*. It is the Intelligent *Design* movement, not the Intelligent
*Designer* movement!
True but it's obvious where the ID movement wants to take it. If they only
realized that since it does not identify the designer, natural forces could
be the designer making ID nothing more than "nature did it".
SJ: There are *two* separate questions: 1) is there empirically detectable
evidence for design in nature? and if so; 2) who (or what) is the designer
or
designers?
There can be evidence of design, is there evidence of design in nature. So
far no evidence has been given that shows this.
SJ: The first question: "is there empirically detectable evidence for
design in
nature?", is the primary focus of the ID movement. If it turns out to be
true, it will be the public property of all mankind and equally supportive
of
all religions and philosophies which maintain there is design in nature.
Right... In the mean time it is used before even a scientific case has been
made to pretend that ID is scientific. And Christians are ecstatic about the
possibilities it provides. The motives of the Discover institute for
instance are quite clear but do not do a favor to Christianity or science.
What is so easily forgotten is that since ID does not identify a designer it
cannot exclude a natural designer. So we have gotten nowhere.
SJ: If design is able to be empirically detected then that will be a great
help to
Christianity in its struggle with those philosophies which deny design, like
materialism, naturalism and Darwinism.
Darwinism does not deny design. A common fallacy.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:17:57 EDT