Reply to: RE: ID vs. ?
>(Bertvan) ID allows the possibility of a god, but does not require one.
I've heard this argument from IDers before. ID is all about God. This notion of aliens breeding life and then depositing it on Earth does not fit into the ID paradigm. In that paradigm, the only logical question is 'Who designed the aliens'? And then, "Who designed the designer of the aliens"? Within the ID paradigm, this question has to asked over and over until we reach the first race of aliens of the universe. Then we have to ask 'Who designed them?" Within the ID paradigm, the notion of life arising through purely naturalistic means can't happen, so God must have created them. ID is all about God. If the aliens could arise through naturalistic means, then why didn't life on Earth and every other planet before it arise through the same means?
Of course, the fact that almost all of the main proponents of ID (Johnson, Dembski, Meyer, Pearcey) are evangelical Christians should give it away. Though all of these people coyly pay lip service to the notion of some designer other than God, they all admit that the designer is God.
If you honestly believe that the designer could be anything but God, then the leadership of the ID movement is using you for their own ends. I'm not against ID because it allows for the possibility of a God. I don't have problems with the possibility of a God. In fact, I'm certain that there is one. But, I do have problems with people distorting science and the truth to manipulate people and the society they live in. That's why I'm against ID.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 28 2000 - 11:30:10 EDT