From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Fri Aug 01 2003 - 15:05:32 EDT
My first reaction to ID was total rejection -when I read Behe in 1996. I then found myself attracted by it, but found I could not take parodies of so-called naturalism. The issue which convinced me against them was their refusal to fully accept Deep Time and discuss design without reference to it. It is insufficient for Behe and Dembski to say they accept 4.6 by old earth and then basically argue as if every thing was abruptly created.
The logic of ID is to be YEC. This will annoy several people, but it is based on much reading and also some discussion with dEmbski and others. My obervation is that YEC are subtly sucking in ID and in the end ID will become YEC.
At best ID can only do reverse engineering but that is what Dawkins and Dennett do. One shreiks Design and the other Natural Selection
----- Original Message -----
From: EckertWAIII@aol.com
To: glennmorton@entouch.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Bananas and other forbidden words.
Hi Glen,
You raise some interesting points about subjectivity and cultural dependence necessarily involved in ID. As comforting as it might be to be able to demonstrate scientifically and mathematically that the universe and the life within it was intelligently designed, I've found Dembski's brand of ID-"science" to be flawed but haven't been able to put my finger on just why I think so.
-Bill
--
William A. Eckert III, Ph.D.
Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Durham, NC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 01 2003 - 15:02:06 EDT