Everyone has their own definitions if ID, evolution, Darwinism, etc. I have
nothing against natural processes. Whether or not ID is "scientific" is
unimportant to me.
I believe life is the result of a design, and have no objection to "nature"
(whatever that is) being the designer. I doubt "random mutation and naurual
selection" was the mechanism. My concept of design does not necessarily
require "intervention", but cannot rule it out. Often my disagreement with
some of you is small, mostly concerning philosophy. One of my reasons for
arguing in favor of ID is distaste for its opponents. Until these
discussions about evolution, I assumed atheists were merely people with a
different view of religion. However most atheists on the Internet appear
arrogant, intolerant, shrill and dominated by a paranoid fear of religion. I
have found nothing like that among supporters of ID. The ID discussion board
is often too scientific and technical for me. It is the opponents of ID who
insist upon arguing about the existence or non existence of God.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 06 2000 - 11:59:29 EDT