Bertvan:
Hi FMAJ, I am not a scientist, and make no pretense of engaging in scientific
discussion. Evidence can be found for almost all sides of any question.
Anyone interested in forming their own opinion Darwinism and ID would do well
to read those scientists who make the arguments. Nothing would be
accomplished by my repeating it here. I am a part of public opinion. There
are a few Darwinists who seem to sincerely believe nature's complexity was
"created" by random mutation and natural selection. However, for the most
part, those involved in this emotional defense of the theory are more
interested in bashing religion. I don't think the public is yet completely
aware of this. I believe such awareness could be helpful when evaluating the
evidence.
>>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!
FMAJ
>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".
Bertvan:
True. Most IDs have nothing against "natural forces". In fact, many more
details of the design - whether it was designed by a god or "natural forces"
- will probably be revealed, once we get past this insistence that it had to
be "random mutation and natural selection". The Darwinists are the ones
obsessed about the designer; IDs keep saying forget the designer. They are
more interested in the design. If most of the IDs happen to be Christian,
that is merely an indication to me that they are apparently more open minded
than the religion bashers.
FMAJ
>Darwinism does not deny design. A common fallacy.
Bertvan:
Great to hear! What are we arguing about then?
FMAJ
So natural forces can be definitely a form of ID? That does seem to reduce
the meaning of ID a little.
Bertvan:
Seems to me it expands it. All ID has said so far is that nature is the
result of a design, rather that random processes. The design obviously
includes "natural forces". I have yet to encounter an ID advocate arguing
against "evolution" as defined as "change over time". They argue against
"random mutation and natural selection" as having created nature's
complexity. If Darwinism wants to redefine itself to allow the *possibility*
of teleology, and redefine random to allow the possibility of design, I
wonder who will have won the argument?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 11:05:59 EDT