Bertvan
>>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
>>be helpful when evaluating the >evidence.
Cliff H:
>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?
Bertvan:
Hi Cliff H, I don't have to explain your beliefs, or however you might have
arrived at them. That is your business. The "evidence" for design has
convinced some; others remain unconvinced. I support your right to express
your beliefs. I protest any efforts to prevent expression of opposing views.
I understand Baylor is where professors rose up in protest, merely because
the question was being discussed -- by people supporting and opposing ID.
(It wasn't even connected with the science department.) As long as any
portion of the public remains convinced everyone supporting ID is a
"creationist" or a "religious fundamentalist", I will remain a vocal
supporter of the movement. When other scientists stop questioning the
academic credentials or personal integrity of those scientists supporting ID,
I'll probably loose interest in the controversy.
Cliff H:
>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:
It's no hasty generalization. God gets mentioned here more often that Darwin
-in spite of repeated protests that ID allows the possibility of a god, but
does not require it. It is not part of the concept.
Cliff H:
>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
>hreatens 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
>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.
Bertvan:
I don't care who other people think the "designer" is. It is understandable
some Christians are interested in a theory which allows the possibility of a
god. Apparently you are offended by it. It's a personal belief. Why should
you care? Most IDs acknowledge that the existence of a god can not be
scientifically demonstrated. ID merely hopes to present convincing evidence
that nature is the result of a design rather than random processes. It is
your option to remain unconvinced.
Cliff H:
>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.
Bertvan:
The term is "intelligent design", not "conscious design", not "sentient
design". In any case, I probably disagree with many things the Discovery
Institute advocates. With ID, I agree.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 15:46:11 EDT