To: Ralph
>
>Chris
> >Finally, echoing Arnhart, the theistic ID position is based almost entirely
> >on ignorance. It's the "God of the Gaps," again. Since we do not *know* how
> >life originated, we *cannot* argue that it must have been design. Since we
> >do not have *any* specific evidence of an actual *instance* of divine
> >intervention (and just how would we know it was *divine* intervention,
> >anyway?), we cannot claim to know that such interventions have occurred.
> >The strongest claim we can make is that we are *ignorant* of such things.
> >And ignorance means *ignorance*, not an excuse to make any damn arbitrary
> >claim we happen to want to believe because it fits our desires or religious
> >beliefs. (This is something many of the *non-theistic* ID theorists need to
> >learn as well (Bertvan?).)
>
>Hi Chris,
>I have stated repeatedly that a profession of ignorance would be acceptable
>to me. And ignorance means ignorance, not an excuse to make such arbitrary
>claim such as, "We know exactly how it happened. It was random variation and
>natural selection," just because that is the only explanation we can think of
>that fits a materialistic philosophy. I'm convinced there was a lot more to
>it than that simplistic explanation.
>Bertvan
Ralph:
>But what do you find simplistic about random variation and natural
> selection? The strict creationist (God did it all) is very simplistic,
>comparatively speaking. The blended creationist/evolution position
>(God or aliens or whatever started it, evolution did the rest) is a little
> more complicated but still has the simplistic notion of God (or
>someone or something) did it at the start.
Hi Ralph,
I suppose simplistic is one of those words for which we each have our own
definition. My concept of ID is not much more than an observation that nature
seems to be the result of intelligence, and while chance plays a part in all
of nature, I doubt chance played an important role in the creation of
nature's complexity. I don't give much thought to the possible roll of
aliens. You seem to think "it just happened" to be a more reasonable
explanation than God (or something) did it at the start. Everyone to their
own taste. Until I have a better understanding of nature, I can't rule
anything out, including RM&NS, YEC, or Aliens.
Materialist philosophy seems simplistic to me - the idea that life is nothing
more that intricate arrangements of inert matter. If I were a materialist,
perhaps I could accept that nature's complexity might be the result of
nothing more than chance variation and natural selection. However I question
anyone's authority to claim that all scientists must materialists. (I would
also question anyone's authority to claim materialists could not be
scientists.)
Ralph:
> To inject ID into the random variation and natural selection picture
>simplifies things, since tough spots can be gotten over by saying
>Intelligence did it. It seems to me that random variation and
> natural selection is the most complicated of the lot
>since there is no appeal to superior beings or talents.
Bertvan
Tough spots can be gotten over by saying Intelligence did it - or by saying
chance variation and natural selection did it. The most complex would be to
try to understand how life differs from inert matter. I suggest that
Intelligence is a part of life in a way that distinguishes it from inert
matter. I don't propose merely naming Intelligence and dismissing it. I
advocate trying to understand what role intelligence plays in life processes.
Bertvan
http:members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 13:20:59 EDT