[snip]
>GM>Well, Stephen, for one, being a christian, I am more interested in
>>Christianity having a good apologetical defense. While I have muslims in my
>>extended family and have a deep respect for them, I do not believe their
>>religion to be correct and thus, I don't have to deal with their
>>apologetical problems.
>
>Glenn is getting confused with ID and Christian Apologetics. I am interested
>in Christian Apologetics too, just like I am interested in Christian
Evangelism,
>and Christian Missions. But these are all separate spheres, although they
>are all important and connected.
So the ID movement has nothing to do with Christianity then?
>
>ID is a valuable part of Christian Apologetics, but only a part of it.
There is
>a lot more to Christian Apologetics than ID. ID is a part of Christian
>Apologetics but Christian Apologetics is not a a part of ID.
>
>ID is about establishing there is a God. Christian Apologetic is about
>establishing the *Christian* God.
So, once again, the ID movement doesn't care about what God/alien created
life. Is that correct?
>
>ID uses the facts of nature. Christian Apologetic uses the facts of nature
>(General Revelation) and the facts of Scripture (Special Revelation).
>
>ID could be taught in science classrooms under the US Constitution but
>Christian Apologetics never could. ID is the counterpart to Materialism-
>Naturalism, which is by default taught in science classes.
Or are you saying that ID is a way to get creation taught in the class rooms?
>ID proper has only been going, in its modern form, since 1991 and non-ID
>has almost all the money and university posts! It is *unreasonable* for
>Glenn to expect ID to compete with modern non-ID science on equal terms
>right away.
I hear this argument from the YEC side also. They don't need money, they
need ideas. All it takes is a good thinker to propose a scenario.
Apparently they either lack one of those, or they lack a desire to get
involved in suggesting scenarios.
>
>But also, Glenn assumes that ID must come up with something *different*
>regarding "the past history of the earth". This is not necessarily so. There
>will be a lot of things that ID and Naturalism don't differ much on. The age
>of the Earth is one of them.
And evolution I presume is also one of them?
>
>ID's prime role at this moment in its history is establishing the very
>possibility of Design, i.e. philosophical. Modern science denies even
>the possiblity of ID. That battle has to be fought first. The research
programs
>will come along in due course, when the legitimacy of Design is established
>and public funds are allocated to carry out research into Design.
ACtually this isn't true. As I pointed out to Mike this morning astronomers
and physicists are clearly engaged in a discussion of design as is
evidenced by the many discussions of the implications of the Big Bang and
the anthropic principle. Penrose writes:
in order for the universe to start out in a big bang with WEYL=0
so that the second law could be in existence, the odds of this
happening are quite small when phase space is considered.
"This now tells us how precise the creator's aim must have been:
namely to an accuracy of
10^123.
one part in 10
This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even
write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation;
it would be '1' followed by 10^123 successive '0's!.
p 344 Roger Penrose The Emperor's New Mind (New York: Penguin
books 1991)
Sounds to me like this world class scientist is talking about design and a
creator!
>
>A prime area of research IMHO will be the origin of life and molecular
>machines. If plausible scenarios can be worked out which uses Intelligent
>Design legitimately, and fits all the facts, then ID will be established
as a
>superior paradigm to Naturalism. Then all else will follow up the line.
>
>But all this will take time, maybe several generations.
So we must wait several generations before we know if they have anything?
This is what I have suspected all along. No amount of laggerdliness is to
be counted as evidence against ID. They can for a hundred years claim to be
the right answer without so much as showing a single explanation for
anything. Wow, I wish my bosses were so forgiving.
Darwin in his Origin
>said that his theory would not take hold until all the existing scientists
died
>off and he was right. Darwinism did mot really take hold until the 1930's,
>70 years after Darwin. ID might take as long, or even longer to become
>established. Those who complain that ID is not doing anything lack
>historical perspective. I am 53 and I doubt if I will live to see ID's
triumph.
>But I do expect to see ID steadily making progress.
You have amazing faith in ID.
>
>GM>Thus
>>they, like the YECs will be relegated to the sidelines of science. Until
>>Christians finally figure out that there is a need for a workable scenario
>>the 10% will always have sway. The game is being played and we are not even
>>on the field!
>
>See above. Glenn is still fixated about YEC. YEC is becoming a side-issue
>even among the YECs. Read Ashton's "In Six Days". It's supposed to be
>about YEC but it's all about ID. It has quote after quote by Behe and he
>believes in common ancestry and an Old Earth! IMHO YEC will just fade
>away as a major issue and ID will take its place.
Maybe the YECs will fade, but the ID movement has all the earmarks of
another YEC. YEC for years has told its members that the future will bring
the answers. Maybe this is being hung up with YEC, but when I see the same
things, I wonder.
[snip]
>Glenn is getting confused about different levels of ID. There can be
>ID theories at the cosmological and biological levels. While someone
>could argue, as Crick does, for an "alien-designer concept", he still
>has to explain the aliens! And the aliens could not be responsible
>for the fine-tuning of the universe. While the "alien-designer concept"
>could not be ruled out under ID to explain life on Earth, it could not
>compete with the "God-designer concept" as a more comprehensive
>theory of design.
Maybe the aliens are the ancient Roman Gods. They are eternal and thus
require no explanation!
[snip
>GM>No, it doesn't have to be better. It is another false rabbit trail that
>>will lead nowhere. THey don't tell us what actually happened in the past
>>and that is the game that must be played. And by the way, I am a member of
>>the ID movement because I believe in a Designer. But if I stop there, then
>>I haven't done a thing.
>
>See above. Glenn is still fixated about YEC issues. The age of the Earth
>is not an ID issue:
Stephen, you can't read. I didn't say a thing about the age of the earth.
Are you fixated on that?
>[snip]
>GM>We simply can't prevail until we present a workable scenario of past
>>history!
>
>See above. The "past history" of the Earth is simply not an ID issue.
>Glenn is demanding that ID address something that is a non-problem to it.
Now we get to the truth. ID doesn't care that what they say about the past
is true or not. The past history of the earth is not an ID issue. So if the
past history isn't an ID issue Stephen, why do they claim to know that an
intelligent designer created life IN THE PAST? The above is a silly claim
on your part.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution