Bertvan:
Hi FMAJ,
As Stan pointed out, you seem full of one liners, but if you want to play
straight man, it's ok with me.
>>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.
FMAJ
>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:
It would never be my intention to displace "naturalism" in science. I
wouldn't even want to eradicate materialists. Diversity of opinion is
healthy. If ever naturalism appears in danger of being "displaced", I'll
join you in protest. Meanwhile ID supporters seems to be the only people
voicing opposition to "Naturalism" being inflicted upon everyone as
scientific fact.
>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.
FMAJ:
>Are you stereotyping a bit here?
Bertvan;
Yes. However maybe you would like to point out a list of tolerant atheists.
You know, the ones willing to allow those scientists who choose, to assume
nature is the result of an intelligent design.
>>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.
FMAJ
>We disagree
Bertvan:
That's allowed.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 16:16:29 EDT