As I have pointed out before Denton is a theist which in my mind makes him
religious because he believes in a religious object--God.
Denton said,""I tend to think that perhaps the evidence suggests a
transcendant sort of Hebraic God in the Judeo Christian tradition. An
external creator made the world and gave it its order, its pattern, its
ends." Michael Denton, The Biological Evidence of Creation, Keziah
Productions, 1998
>
>There are other IDers on the other List that I am on, who are, AFAIK, not
>followers of any religion, but I am not at liberty to mention their names.
Nice cop out.
>
[snip]
>My point was that the first step is to establish the scientific legitimacy
of ID
>at the philosophical level. It would be a waste of time doing research to
>support design, when the leaders of the scientific world don't even agree
>that design is scientific.
What you are saying is that unless they are assured beforehand that people
will accept their ideas they don't need to play the game or fight the
fight. Good strategy!
>
>Glenn only has to look at this Reflector. Most, if not all, the
evolutionists
>deny that design is scientific and therefore no amount of evidence for
>design would convince them that there is design.
I believe in design via the anthropic principle. What I don't believe in is
design where the ID crowd places it. I am an evolutionist and I do beleive
the design argument.
>
>Remember what Jesus said in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus:
>
>"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will
>not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Lk 16:31)
To follow your logic above then, you are saying that because Jesus knew he
would be rejected he shouldn't have started telling everyone that he was
the Messiah. Good strategy, Stephen! Thank God Jesus didn't take your advice.
[snip]
>>SJ>This is a good point. But Penrose is a Platonist, so he may not agree
that
>>>there really was a Designer.
>
>GM>Man, you don't know anything about philosophy. For a person who thinks of
>>himself as a follower of ID which is now busy getting philosophical
>>justification, this is surprising.
>
>Glenn is getting me, a humble foot soldier of the ID movement confused
>with its leaders! I personally am not "now busy getting philosophical
>justification" for ID. I rely on the qualified philosophers in the ID
>movement for that.
No, I don't have you confused for even a foot soldier. When you talk about
things about which you know so little, you bring disrepute upon the
movement you say you support.
[snip]
>I am aware that "Plato" believed in a "demiurge", but I doubt that modern
>Platonists do. But Glenn needs to read what I say more carefully, to save
>wasting our time. I did say that "Penrose ... *may* not agree that there
>really was a Designer".
Don't you read what I write? I quoted Penrose talking about a creator read
that Designer!
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution