In a message dated 9/12/2000 9:39:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Bertvan@aol.com writes:
<< You not only don't believe in design; you are offended that anyone else
believe it. Right? As an ID supporter I might agree that naturalistic
explanations might be possible. The question is, which are the most likely
explanations? Do you allow any difference of opinion there?
>>
Wrong. I do 'believe in design' and I can see some very interesting
applications for ID. What I am pointing out to you is that ID does not seem
to be adding much to a scientific explanation: "an unidentified designer with
unidentified powers used unidentified means to create something". Especially
when design is infered from absence of evidence rather than from independent
evidence.
But ID's problems do not end here. Presuming that ID can reliably detect
design, and the evidence is lacking and there is even evidence that it
cannot, it still cannot identify the designer. This means that it cannot
exclude a natural designer. The use of the words "intelligent" and "design"
seem to indicate that it could but remember ID is merely a placeholder, we
should be careful to not let us be guided by the words intelligent and design
to conclude that traditional forms of intelligence and design are only
included. Natural forces can be as good intelligent designers as any, at
least ID cannot exclude them.
Furthermore, Behe's ID, (although a limited form) based on IC of biological
systems, has been falsified since it has been shown how IC systems can arise
through natural steps.
To me it seems very obvious that there are plenty of problems with ID. Do I
"allow" any difference of opinion? Of course, I would hardly disallow such
nor could I disallow such but I will also share my opinion and comment on the
issues raised.
Your comments suggest that you are upset to hear people 'attack' ID. As long
as ID is a faith related issue, as it seems to be to you, then there is no
real problem but if ID is presented as scientific, an empirical marker or
such then it's time to look at its claims and show that so far ID seems to
have failed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 22:56:09 EDT