>
>Ralph:
> >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
>
>Hi Ralph,
>One reason this agnostic is attracted to ID is exasperation with "chance
>variation and natural selection". I am interested in many people's thoughts
>on evolution, including panspermia, Lamarckism, Holism -- and Fred Hoyle's
>"The Intelligent Universe". To me, "intelligence" is the significant part
>of ID. I doubt evolution was the result of some rigid "plan". However the
>entire process is loaded with "intelligence". I believe nature is the
>result of intelligence and not the result of a series of chance events.
I can understand and appreciate a wide-ranging interest but it does
seem like you have settled on a particular personal interpretation of the facts
of evolution. If evolution was not the result of some rigid "plan" then was
it a flexible "plan" or no "plan" at all? If it was a flexible plan, how
do we distinguish it from a series of chance events? If there was no
"plan", why do we need to postulate an ID?
>(I
>don't see how one can say any part of nature, such as extinction, is "worse"
>or "better". If I gave the impression that was my belief, I didn't make
>myself clear.)
I was referring to your belief that ID is a "better" explanation than evolution
for the history of life (and, therefore, extinctions). Sorry if I didn't
make myself
clear.
>I probably disagree with most of Philip Johnson's political
>positions and views on religion. However I do agree when he charges that
>Darwinism has been used as an attempt to impose materialism upon society as
>"scientific truth".
I have never seen any proof for these conspiracy theories.
>It is my personal observation that most of the people
>passionately fighting ID are engaged in some juvenile, paranoid crusade
>against religion.
Like you, I am unconvinced by name-calling.
>Being committed to neither atheism nor theism, I would
>protest either being imposed upon society as "truth", scientific or
>otherwise.
Hmm. You support a recall of all missionaries, I suppose? A
ban on evangelism?
> At the moment no one is trying to impose ID upon anyone. It is
>being suggested as an alternative way of viewing nature. Materialists are
>still free to dream up their elaborate "chance" explanations. That doesn't
>appear good enough for them. They seem to want to prevent anyone even
>considering anything but "chance variation and natural selection".
>
>Bertvan
I don't think ID is being suggested "as an alternative way of viewing nature".
That's playing down what they're after, IMHO. They want ID recognized as
a *scientific explanation* of the facts of evolution. That's considerably
different.
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 12:52:01 EDT