Re: Why I don't reject ID

From: Susan Cogan (Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 11 2000 - 12:49:05 EDT

  • Next message: Huxter4441@aol.com: "Re: A new private mailing list?"

    >From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
    >
    > >Note how it works. Richard (who is an atheist and therefore denies design
    >>apriori) calls for evidence for design. Yet when evidence is submitted,
    >>Richard say he fails to see it!
    >
    >Oh Stephen, Stephen. Will you never learn? The fact that I've concluded that
    >there's no God does not mean that I deny design a priori. In fact you've
    >made *two* logical errors here.
    >
    >1) A person who arrives at one conclusion has not a priori rejected the
    >contrary conclusion. And he may change his mind in the light of new
    >evidence.
    >
    >2) Atheism and design are not mutually contradictory, as the designer could
    >be an alien species. (For the umpteenth time!)

    actually Stephen has argued this point himself many times--that ID
    does not *require* the designer to be the Christian God. Stephen
    seems to be contradicting himself above. If the designer is an alien
    then an atheist can believe in ID. If the designer must be the
    Christian God then an atheist must a priori reject ID. Once again
    Stephen exposes the religious underpinnings of ID.

    Susan 

    -- 
----------

      I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be 
denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is 
bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man 
as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the 
laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of 
the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.

    ---Charles Darwin

    http://www.telepath.com/susanb/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 11 2000 - 12:50:03 EDT