>>Here is a test. I ask Cliff to state up front what he would accept as
>>"positive arguments for ID", such that if I provided it, he would
accept it?
>I would possibly be convinced by some incredibly magical revelation,
>some big genie in the sky doing fantastic things with a wave of the
hand;
>but I'd probably think I was dreaming.
I am a creationist but I do not believe ID is detectable apart from
direct revelation. All the "proofs" I have seen boil down to a mis-use of
probablily and statistics.
Consider the problem of old paintings done by dead people. Recently there
was a story about a particular painting. For a hundred years it had been
hanging in a museum as a work of (can't think of his name) but now some
new experts have decided it is a forgery. To me, this is primarially
evidence that art is a scam. If the forgery isn't noticed by experts for
100 years then there isn't any substantial difference in painting skill
between the great painting master and the forger. The forger might be the
superior artist.
So even when the intelligent designer signs his work we can't
differentiate between the official artist and the imposter. Isn't that
the current state of this debate? In any list of historical events
(evolution is a historical event) there is no way to seperate God's
direct intervention from "stuff happens" except by the moral outcome. And
if we blame satan for bad moral outcomes the situation gets worse.
billwald@juno.com
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 11 2000 - 12:52:27 EDT