At 05:10 PM 09/04/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>You are probably correct that ID does not yet have a rigid definition.
>However, all who call themselves ID are united on one thing: Skepticism of
>"random mutation and natural selection" as the explanation of nature's
>complexity. IDs would also probably all be in agreement about skepticism that
>the origin of life was a random coming together of inert chemicals. Most,
>not all, Darwinists are materialists, but I think I can safely say no
>supporter of ID would define himself as a materialist. Again, that which
>unites all IDs is skepticism of "random mutation and natural selection" as
>the creator of life's complexity.
>
>The definition of ID might be vague, but none of us seem to have any trouble
>deciding which side of the arguement we are on, do we?
Thus, the "definition" of ID, by Bertvan's views, would be simply that they
are skeptical of any theory that allows for non-purposive naturalistic
processes as the means by which life arose and/or evolved. It's amusing to
me that Bertvan is claiming that ID theorists are united only in holding to
a negative proposition.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 22:14:13 EST