Hi Chris,
There is a difference between Stephen's belief in theism and your belief that
nothing exists which can't be explained naturalistically. The difference is
as follows:
Stephen is not trying to impose his belief in theism upon anyone, and he
acknowledges that his beliefs are unproven. (Evidence can be cited as
argument for both views, but not proof.) But while Stephen is merely
presenting his arguments for the benefit of those who might be interested,
materialists, on the other hand, seem determined to impose a belief in
naturalism upon everyone else as "scientific truth". In fact, they take to
the courts to try to enforce that view.
Design in nature seems as obvious to Stephen and me as your belief that
nothing "non-natural" exists appears to you. I'm confident most proponents
of ID would be content for everyone of your persuasion to continue doing
science, or whatever else you choose to do. They merely want the issue
openly and clearly defined so that all those who believe something more than
matter exists can make their own free choice--without fear of intimidation or
ridicule. Personally I don't share Stephen's beliefs about his God, any more
than I share your belief in materialism, but I have no desire to "eliminate"
either philosophy. At the moment all ID is doing is asking that their view
be heard. If promoters of ID ever become as arrogant as materialists now
are about trying to imposing some particular theory such as Darwinism (RM&NS
plus genetic drift) upon society, I'll join you in protest.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 08 2000 - 16:17:29 EDT