Bertvan wrote:
>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. 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.
mutation and natural selection must be opposed by IDers because that is the
mechanism of relatedness and common descent. They do not wish to believe
that everything alive is one family of which they are a part. They want to
believe that they are specially created. They also are all uniformly
opposed to abiogenesis for the same reason. God did it. The creation of
life is solely God's bailiwick and not that of nature itself. They can't
imagine all of nature as potentially alive. You are correct that no ID
supporter would describe themselves as "materialists" they are
"supernaturalists" and are religiously motivated (including yourself, as
you reveal below, though you refuse to acknowledge it)
>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?
You believe it even if you don't have a clear idea of what it is? Nearly
all of the definitions posted from Dembski, Johnson, et al. are religious
in nature. "Intelligent Design" is just another way to say "God created the
heavens and the earth."
Susan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 17:44:50 EDT