>
>I still don't know why agnostics would be attracted to ID.
Chris
Because ID does not, in principle, require a supernatural designer as long
as it is admitted that it might be possible for life to arise *somewhere*,
*somehow* by naturalistic means, that life could be "the" designer.
ralph
>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"?
Chris
This is a good question, as is the question of why it is thought that life
that exists at all *is* part of the plan. Perhaps the *plan* was that there
would be *no* life at all, in which case, *all* life is "outside" the plan.
Further, it would almost *have* to be a non-supernatural designer, if
things *can* happen "outside" the plan? Bertvan is obviously biasing the
conclusion in favor of her wishes, but there is no evidential reason for
choosing one variant of design theory over the other, once she admits that
something *can* be outside the alleged plan. I may as well note that her
suggestion that something is or is not outside of some plan assumes that
she has some knowledge of the plan that the rest of us do not have, despite
the lack of any evidence for such knowledge (or that *she* has any special
evidence for such claims). I commented on the sheer *egotism* of faith in
my original post in this thread. This is just one of many examples of it
from Bertvan. Phillip Johnson has also made similar claims, such as the one
that FMA quoted:
I do not think it worthwhile to discuss detail evidentiary questions
with Denis Lamoureux, or with other person who [hold(?)] the
postition
I call theistic naturalism, or whatever they chose to call it.
This is yet another admission by Johnson that his scientific case is
essentially empty, and that his position is held on faith, a faith that, in
his egotistical fervor, he wishes to foist off onto America's school
children. Magically, *his* faith is to be accepted as correct, despite his
inability to *actually* argue from the evidence. Why? Because it's *his*
faith!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 00:29:36 EDT