>>(Bertvan) ID allows the possibility of a god, but does not require one.
Cliff H.:
>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?
Bertvan
Hi Cliff H,
My question was what is the belief that opposes ID. From your reply I assume
it is that life arose through purely naturalistic means. I am not "opposed"
to such a theory. I just don't believe it. Are you willing to put everyone
who is skeptical of abiogenesis in the ID camp? We would be delighted. In
any case, I encourage anyone who believes life arose naturalistically to
pursue it vigorously. I question anyone's right to declare abiogenesis a
fact until it has been demonstrated. (I haven't heard any ID advocates
seriously pushing space aliens. That's mainly done by ID critics looking for
a straw man.)
Cliff:
>Of course, the fact that almost all of the main proponents of ID
>(Johnson, Dembski, Meyer, Pearcey) are
>evangelical Christians should give it away.
Bertvan:
This is pure McCarthyism, in my opinion. While you say you have nothing
against God, I assume you do have something against evangelical Christians.
(I do acknowledge that there are probably few atheists supporting ID.)
Cliff:
>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.
Bertvan:
Most people are either atheists or accept some religious belief. We
agnostics are a tiny minority. However I suspect many of us will be
attracted to the ID movement. Has it occurred to you that we might be using
them for our own ends? You see, I don't really have any objections to
Darwinists, or anyone else, "distorting science and the truth to manipulate
people and the society they live in". Just so long as no one tries to
prevent others from speaking out in opposition. ( Agnostics aren't interested
in questions about God. We regard them as unanswerable.) If you can
believe in a "Big Bang" without inserting god in the theory, some of us can
see design in nature without worrying about where it came from.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 28 2000 - 13:34:45 EDT