>
>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
But what do you find simplistic about random variation and natural selection?
The strict creationist (God did it all) is very simplistic, comparatively
speaking.
The blended creationist/evolution position (God or aliens or whatever started
it, evolution did the rest) is a little more complicated but still has the
simplistic
notion of God (or someone or something) did it at the start. To inject ID
into
the random variation and natural selection picture simplifies things, since
tough spots can be gotten over by saying Intelligence did it. It seems to me
that random variation and natural selection is the most complicated of the lot
since there is no appeal to superior beings or talents.
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 11:15:58 EDT