>Ralph:
>>Agnostic: One who believes that there can be no proof of the
>>existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God
>>exists. The American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd Ed.
>
>>Bertvan, does your definition of agnostic differ significantly
>>from this? If so, how? And why will "more and more" agnostics
>>be speaking out for a design inference? I don't understand
>>why you think a design inference is more attractive to agnostics
>>than the Darwinian model.
>
>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;
>their critics do constantly. Agnostics are less bound by creeds,
materialist
>or otherwise, so are free to acknowledge that life obviously looks
designed.
>They don't feel compelled struggle to dream up some rational that allows
them
>to conclude that design is an illusion.
>
>Bertvan
>http://members.aol.com/bertvan
I still don't know why agnostics would be attracted to ID. If there is an ID
with some sort of overall plan, then the history of life on earth is the
history of that plan in action. So far, the defining feature seems to be
extinction, in various degrees of severity. Why is extinction by chance
worse than extinction by design? I know you think if a species goes extinct
that's a sign that they were a mistake, outside of the plan. If that's true,
how do we know we're not "outside of the plan" and headed for eventual
"error correction"?
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 24 2000 - 23:18:06 EDT