Re: Definitions of ID

From: FMAJ1019@aol.com
Date: Thu Sep 07 2000 - 23:02:19 EDT

  • Next message: FMAJ1019@aol.com: "Re: ID vs. ?"

    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.

    I try to keep it simple. Why the need to elaborate if the message can be
    exchanged with a few lines of text?

    >>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 am not talking about you though. Many ID'ers seem to be quite intent of
    doing that which is perhaps not your intention.

    Bertvan: 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.

    Often in a confusion of science and naturalism.

    >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.

    Again you have to be careful here. If scientists chose to assume that nature
    is a result of ID and let their faith interfere with their science then it is
    by all means something which should be opposed at all cost. Since you already
    have admitted to stereotyping, there is really no need for me to point out a
    list of tolerant atheists.

      

    ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
    Return-Path: <evolution-owner-FMAJ1019=aol.com@lists.calvin.edu>
    Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3])
    by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.11) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Sep 2000 16:17:03
     -0400
    Received: from lists.calvin.edu (udomo3.calvin.edu [153.106.4.240]) by rly-
    yd03.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Sep 2000 16:16:38 -0400
    Received: (qmail 2918 invoked by uid 27); 7 Sep 2000 20:15:58 -0000
    Delivered-To: evolution@lists.calvin.edu
    Received: (qmail 2912 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2000 20:15:57 -0000
    Received: from ursa.calvin.edu (153.106.4.1)
      by udomo3.calvin.edu with SMTP; 7 Sep 2000 20:15:57 -0000
    Received: from imo-r12.mx.aol.com (imo-r12.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.66])
        by ursa.calvin.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e87KGN529220
        for <evolution@calvin.edu>; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:16:23 -0400 (EDT)
    Received: from Bertvan@aol.com
        by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id e.a3.b0dc692 (2172)
        for <evolution@calvin.edu>; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:16:04 -0400 (EDT)
    From: Bertvan@aol.com
    Message-ID: <a3.b0dc692.26e95183@aol.com>
    Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:16:03 EDT
    Subject: Definitions of ID
    To: evolution@calvin.edu
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Mailer: AOL 5.1 for Windows sub 34
    Sender: evolution-owner@lists.calvin.edu
    Precedence: bulk

        



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 23:02:34 EDT