avocationist
Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Tacitus,
OK, I've spent 30 minutes trying to figure out how to enclose in quotes, or even using bold instead. I'll just have to preface my quotes with "You said"
And what's up with not being able to print a four letter word that starts with h and designates and extremely hot place?
When I said ID is the design inference and nothing more, you continue to state that Dembski's professed goal of overthrowing the materialist oppression is somehow disingenuous. But it isn't. Everyone has a worldview. ID itself is rather limited.
You said: I assume you meant to say "evolutionists" and not "atheists" since they are hardly synonymous.
Well, I meant atheists have philosophical motives as well as IDists. Really, tho, it applies to anyone. Now, you say an atheist and an evolutionist are not the same but I disagree. This is my opinion--evolution that teaches random unguided processes is only compatible with atheism, and no form of deistic or theistic belief is compatible with it. I consider Ken Miller a very confused IDist.
You said: I do believe that if ID ever becomes the primary theory taught in our schools, the most likely reason is that the Reconstructionalists or the Dominionists will have somehow managed to take over the government.
You know, I think ID is true. But if I thought those guys had a chance I'd fight them. But I don't think that's the reason it will be taught. It will be taught when people see it's true. Look, lots of those people are mad at ID because they won't support 6-day creationism. And I'll bet a lot of new age spiritualists will accept ID. How can you paint everyone with the same brush?
You say I have assumed God is discoverable. But I prefaced it with the word 'probably.' I don't think a separate God is a possibility, but that is because I lead a contemplative life. I could be wrong. The idea that God does not want us to know him/her is getting too far into fantasy. Attributing all sorts of petty emotions to the infinite? Yes, I heard one or two Christians express the idea that God does not want to be proved because he wants us to have faith. Frankly, I was shocked. That is a dismal view. It shows that they do not understand what faith is, and it shows that Christianity neither assists nor encourages people to come to know God. But what's worst is that these people believe in an eternal #### scenario, with an egotistical God who sends people there for the absurd reason that they don't know if he's real. Yet he doesn't want to spoil this rigged game by letting us discover his existence for sure? With a guy like that on our side, who needs a devil? I guess it won't be very inspiring in heaven, what with nothing but knowledge of God and no need of faith. ************************************** Puck,
If God can be "proved" rationally, then that should mean that we can expect or hope that science will find the way to catch up. I am sorry but the following didn't click:
God---> Absolute Supreme Being Science---> Does not deal in absolute certainty Intelligent Designer--> If an entity, most likely a superior entity, yet not Supreme
The parts aren't coming together for me. But I agree the designer could be a less than supreme being. The gnostics thought so, but they thought this world was evil and that the designer was bad, maybe even Satan. I do not agree, being monistic.
You also said that the entity, if created by God, would therefore by default mean that evolution is a creation of God. That is true. Do you agree with that?
You said: So ID is not an attempt to make a scientific case for God.
Not sure what you're saying. Although, they would agree that ID is not a case for God, but for intelligent design. But I think that until we get to God, we will have the regress of who designed the designer.
It doesn't matter if ID is a rework, oldies are goodies, but now there is much fresh data.
Please explain why ID is cheating from a theological standpoint. I didn't quite get that whole line of thought.
Most IDists aren't pushing for the classroom, and Darwin's time moved slower than ours but they pushed soon enough. I do think that you're right ID needs more time to cook, but there's no need for hostility and it gets a bit tired to call it bad science.
When people like Flint say that there is no evidence for ID and that all the ID people know this perfectly well-- I am simply speechless.
Yes, I do think they have enough evidence. And I suppose you may have read and critiqued their papers, although many have not. The problem, then, must lie elsewhere.
|