Reply to: RE: ID vs. ?
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.
I've noticed that you've brought this idea up a few times. I think Steven has also. I was wondering, how do you explain myself and my collegues at Baylor and Calvin University, as well as many others, who are Christians (or any other religion), who also agree that Darwinian evolution is the best answer to the question of life's origins? Am I bashing myself? I've noticed that Dembski and other leaders of ID will consistently attempt to paint scientists as atheists, but ignore all of us who are scientists and have devout religious beliefs. In the case of the ID leaders, I think the misrepresentation is intentional. I think your case, it is just a hasty generalization.
>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.
I still think you're deluding yourself. Read ALL of the articles by members of the Discovery Institute. When they make statements like , "Design places front and center the wisdom of God in creation, but seems to allow for almost magical intrusions into the natural order that threatens to undo its integrity." (Dembski, 2000), "The most important question is whether God is real or imaginary." (Johnson, 2000), and "The crucial breakthrough of the intelligent design movement has been to show that this great theological truth--that God acts in the world by dispersing information--also has scientific content." (Dembski, 1998) I don't have to guess who they think the designer is. It is not the ID opponents who are obsessed with the designer. Again, if you believe that the intelligent designer is something else other than the Christian God, then you are fooling yourself in believing that that is the research being conducted by the leaders of the Discovery Institute.
>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".
ID means "intelligent design", not natural design. Of course natural design exists. A sand dune is a pile of sand that has been designed into a particular shape by the wind. A smooth round stone has been designed by running water. That is not what the leaders of the ID movement are talking about. They are talking about an intelligent agency that deliberately created life and put it on this planet. Now of course, this is just the most common definition of ID, because the leaders of the movement refuse to discuss exactly what they think happened, because they know that as soon as they start talking about God saying, "Let there be prokaryotic cells", everyone will recognize this as a religious idea and not a scientific one. When we speak of ID, we are talking about an intelligent, sentient, conscious entity. To try to divorce the discussion of detecting design from the nature of the designer is ridiculous. Especially, when the Discovery Institute has already decided who the designer is.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 11:55:08 EDT