In a message dated 9/24/2000 6:47:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Bertvan@aol.com writes:
<< Bertvan
Hi Ralph, to the definition, I would only add that most agnostics don't
believe questions about God are answerable. As to my belief that many
agnostics will support the design inference, more and more of those on the ID
discussion board are agnostics. Supporters of ID rarely bring up religion;
>>
Of course they don't bring up religion in connection to ID but that does not
mean that religion is to many ID'ers a strong motivator. Of course with or
without the religious motivator, ID faces the same imho insurmountable
problems.
<< their critics do constantly. Agnostics are less bound by creeds,
materialist
or otherwise, so are free to acknowledge that life obviously looks designed.
>>
Looking designed is one thing, being actually designed by a non-natural
designer is another
T<< hey don't feel compelled struggle to dream up some rational that allows
them
to conclude that design is an illusion >>
Design can be an illusion. As Wesley has shown, ID cannot exclude natural
selection as the designer. I think it is important to realize that ID thus
seems to add little to our knowledge. Recently ID has been challenged by
several to deliver. For instance by defining intelligent design, or defining
"design". Why is it so hard to define these terms so that one can see if ID
can live up to its promises. That it can detect "design", which is merely
that which falls through the filter of chance and regularity hardly means
that they can detect the kind of design that requires a truely intelligent
designer. Or that it can detect design when evidence for Darwinian pathways
are absent, hardly makes ID useful.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 24 2000 - 17:26:33 EDT