Chris
>Finally, echoing Arnhart, the theistic ID position is based almost entirely
>on ignorance. It's the "God of the Gaps," again. Since we do not *know* how
>life originated, we *cannot* argue that it must have been design. Since we
>do not have *any* specific evidence of an actual *instance* of divine
>intervention (and just how would we know it was *divine* intervention,
>anyway?), we cannot claim to know that such interventions have occurred.
>The strongest claim we can make is that we are *ignorant* of such things.
>And ignorance means *ignorance*, not an excuse to make any damn arbitrary
>claim we happen to want to believe because it fits our desires or religious
>beliefs. (This is something many of the *non-theistic* ID theorists need to
>learn as well (Bertvan?).)
Hi Chris,
I have stated repeatedly that a profession of ignorance would be acceptable
to me. And ignorance means ignorance, not an excuse to make such arbitrary
claim such as, "We know exactly how it happened. It was random variation and
natural selection," just because that is the only explanation we can think of
that fits a materialistic philosophy. I'm convinced there was a lot more to
it than that simplistic explanation.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 10:30:22 EDT