Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 30 2007,09:48)|
| You can tell that Jerry's trying hard to get himself off Double Secret Probation after his little, uh, lapse yesterday:|
|In order to avoid the taint of a God existing, ID points out the obvious. Namely, that some aspects of life could only have been designed. That is all. They stop there.|
You are being disingenuous by pressing for the nature of the designer because you know that most ID people believe it is God and if they admit such you can triumphantly claim that there, it is religion being introduced and as such cannot be taught.
It is a phony insistence to express care about the nature of the designer. Why not let the student speculate and let science study how the design was implemented and then comment on the nature of the designer in a philosophy course.
Dude, I spent part of my summer at a dig. Okay, it dealt with recent history (1800s mill ruins), but still that makes my point - you're supposed to get some idea who the "designers" were from their designs, and in fact we had to know that our "designers" designed mill thingies to go looking for mill artefacts in the first place. Well, I suppose that's a tautology, then! Sue me!
They're trying to poison the well against any premature "It's God!" tada, but I ask you this - I can't help but wonder about the "don't wonder about the Designer" argument if these jokers found a message like this in a biological structure:
HELP ME I'M BEING HELD PRISONER IN AN ALTERNATE REALITY AND THE UNIVERSE IS BEING RUN BY A CHARLATAN
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr