>Once again I think it is you Glen who are missing the point, and you are so sure that you are right, and so unwilling to listen to
>people's responses that you dont get it.
I am not surprised by this comment. But I would say this. If what y'all were selling was so sellable,, why are y'all the minority in the US community of Christians and the YECs outnumber you by about 2-1? Your complaint sounds like that of the democratic party who keeps saying, "if we could only get our message out, the voters would vote for us." But they did get their message out and you are getting yours out. It is illogical and y'all fail to do some introspection even when you are losing the battle grandly!
>You made the claim that the ASA as a group is rejecting design.
I have only heard people saying that someone should write a paper about design. Oh boy. Why has the ASA not been advocating design in the market place of ideas long before this? Why is this article such an afterthought? I have on my web page an article on why I believe in design. I have debated it with atheists. But y'all don't think there is anything tangible about what the bible says that you need to defend. If you can't say anything tangible about the design in the unverse (other than that I feel that there is design) you will make no impact whatsoever. The power of the modern paradigm, as I have stated over and over, is that it tells us the TRUTH about what REALLY happened in the TANGIBLE world. We ASAers proudly proclaim that the Bible says nothing tangible or scientific about the tangible world. And that is what makes your message sound so strange. It is like someone saying, "I know that Leprechauns don't exist but wouldn't you want to believe in them anyway? Wouldn't it make you happy to believe in leprechauns?" Why on earth would anyone be won to your position?
>But, to be a member you have to believe, among other things, that Christ was resurrected, so by definition, ASA members believe
>in design. This means that you are wrong in your claim that ASA doesnt believe in design.
Woah. You make a BIG leap there. First off, lots of people, some of whom I know, have been dead and then resurrected. Modern techniques allow this to happen. Some people have had no demonstrable pulse yet suddenly sit up in the mortuary. Exactly how do these resurrection examples prove design? If it doesn't prove design in the cases of less than 3 days resurrection, why would it prove it if you extend the time to 3 days? This is simply illogical.
>You are confusing the rejection of the claims, methods, and philosophy of the Intelligent Design movement with rejection of all
>claims of design in the universe.
No, you are not listening to me. I am rejecting the concept that most people here even believe in design. This organization is writing a letter to divorce itself from design. What does that say to the world? I will tell you if you can't understand it. It says that we are embarassed by being associated with nutcases who believe that God designed the world.
>If you think that George et al, have now rejected design (design with a small d Glen) then please provide some evidence to back
>that claim because I have not heard anyone say that.
Please provide evidence that they actually act upon their claim that they beleive in design. G.E. Moore was one of my favorite philosophers years ago. He said that if one doubted the existence of the universe, he couldn't live by that creed. Therefore the path forward in philosophy was to look for consistency between action and belief. I don't see any consistency here in that regard.
Now, as to design with a small d, I am not interested in that. I am interested in finding people who believe in design with a capital D to go with the capital G in God. It is not interesting if evolution (designed with a small d)a butterflies wing. It is really interesting if God Designed (with a capital D) the laws of the unvierse to bring us about. So, you once again have not been listening to me (although you are free with your charge that I don't listen). When you listen, and respond to my point, I will be happier.
Received on Wed May 25 08:51:01 2005