Bertvan: 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.
That might very well be but since ID is used to displace "naturalism" in
science (Discovery Institute: Wedge) it is important to determine if ID is
really scientific.
Bertvan: 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.
That's often the worst argument.
Bertvan: 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.
Are you stereotyping a bit here?
Bertvan: 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.
We disagree
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 13:36:08 EDT