RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,05:43   

I'm not so sure about the "denying God" accusation. The official ID line, insofar as there is one, is that we can use science to distinguish between something designed and something not designed, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can pinpoint the designer. I don't think the argument holds up very well under scrutiny, but it's not completely untenable on its face, and a lot of folks who favor the argument are not motivated to scrutinize it very deeply.

It's important to a lot of Believers that science at least not rule out their concept of God, if not necessarily prove it. And let's face it: the generally scientifically accepted version of evolution does, in fact, rule out certain concepts of God. A subpopulation of ID advocates would be happy enough with a version of science that requires some conscious intelligence without specifying it.

Based on my experience at the local level, most "ID" advocates are really old-fashioned creationists who occupy a spectrum ranging from those who actually want the biblical scenario in the curriculum to those who merely want it not ruled out.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]