Susan Brassfield,
They've been forced to dump
> the 6,000 year old earth and forced to accept "micro" evolution, but by
and
> large ID is nothing but Biblical literalism.
Ami:
You know, this is so narrow minded. What do we think Buddhists, Pagans, or
Hindu's have to say
about ID? It is very plausible within that framework too. It isn't just
the Bible in disguise.
And of course, those opposed to any implication that the Divine could have
directed evolution pick out the least rational of the supporters as examples
of what ID 'really is'.
How silly, how little, how intolerant.
Susan:
Though, for propaganda
> purposes we are very, very, very careful not to mention that "B" word.
Ami:
Of course, there are Christians, who in their spiritual lives apply ID to
their study of the Bible. Of course,
there are fundamentalists who can't imagine anything good coming out of
anything not Christian, so they
believe ID is Biblical Creationism (if they give up the 6000 yr old earth).
Susan
I've
> been lurking in the ASA evolution list archives and I've noticed that
there
> are a lot of Christians there who are appalled at the dishonesty of ID
> proponents.
And of course, those opposed to any implication that the Divine could have
directed evolution pick out the least rational of the supporters as examples
of what ID 'really is'.
How silly, how little, how intolerant of you to denounce any attempt of
judeo-christian folks to examine the evidence in a different light than the
established explanation.
I agree with Steve Clark that conservatism is good in science, but I
disagree with applying this to the events at Baylor. If there were results
to research which were published and they disagreed with it, then would be
the time for conservatism to shine through. But attacking a foundation set
up to encourage research and exploration into ID or any "novel paradigm"
will stifle abilities to make breakthroughs in science. We should be
conservative as to what is accepted, but not what is explored.
And perhaps the reason an idea which is over a hundred years old is
surfacing again is simply because
it offers explanation as to how where naturalism doesn't.
Stop with the "ID = Christian fundamentalist conspiracy to undermine
science" bit. It reeks of intolerance and paranoia. I'm sorry, but I'm
just so tired of everyone acting so territorial and self righteous.
Ami Chopine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 18:27:02 EDT