Bertvan: You are probably correct that ID does not yet have a rigid
definition.
However, all who call themselves ID are united on one thing: Skepticism of
"random mutation and natural selection" as the explanation of nature's
complexity.
Which makes ID an even poorer argument. If skepticism is evidence of ID then
ID can never exclude natural explanations. Or in other words, why call it ID
then? Why not "the group skeptical of random mutation and natural selection".
ID and through equivocation seems to imply far more than it could ever
logically support then.
Bertvan: IDs would also probably all be in agreement about skepticism that
the origin of life was a random coming together of inert chemicals. Most,
not all, Darwinists are materialists, but I think I can safely say no
supporter of ID would define himself as a materialist. Again, that which
unites all IDs is skepticism of "random mutation and natural selection" as
the creator of life's complexity.
Cool, so it's a club of those who have no real data to support their beliefs
but their faith makes them to be skeptical of science? I could not have
argued a better example of why ID is hardly scientific.
Bertvan: The definition of ID might be vague, but none of us seem to have
any trouble deciding which side of the arguement we are on, do we?
Hard to tell, depends on the definition of ID. If you are correct then I
agree but then ID has little scientific meaning. As many of us already
argued.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 17:39:06 EDT