Re: asa-digest V1 #1309
John W. Burgeson (johnburgeson@juno.com)
Wed, 11 Aug 1999 16:22:21 -0600
George wrote:
-------------------------
I've heard the arguments & am not impressed. Of course there is the
possibility
of non-theistic designers & things like Crick's directed panspermia. But
the rhetoric of prominent ID proponents makes it clear that the
Intelligent Designer they are arguing for is God. What is the point of
ID attacks on MN if ID can be understood "naturally"?
---------------------------------------
Attacks on MN (Metaphysical naturalism) seem quite appropriate to me. I
don't understand your position. Do you not speak against MN?
George also wrote:
------------
I think the claim that ID amounts to anything more than a
scientifically clothed attempt to say "God did it" is an empty formality.
----------------------
But is this your view of the people espousing it -- or the concept
itself?
Burgy
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.