TeamCasa wrote:

I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.

"Enoch Root"
So your decision isn't influenced by the Creationist conspiracy
surrounding IDs birth?

I'd hardly call a decision to trust in my faith in God a Creationst
conspiracy.

You aren't concerned with the Genie In The Bottle problem associated
with it (the "builder" is also so complex he must have also had a
"builder")?

That's not a valid conceren unless you hold to a faith that does not promise
a future.

You aren't concerned that it merely shifts the complexity to
unverifiable causes when there is a plausible, testable, and evident
alternative (it seems to allow speciation to occur but attributes the
selection process among the variants to a "builder" rather than a
"natural" mechanism.)?

Science has proven true now what will someday become a "they use to
believe..." just as the past historians and philosophers theories and
testable facts are dismissed today. The study of this subject would serve
well our current students.

You aren't concerned that many of the "arguments" made against evolution
by ID's proponents appear to attack problems that aren't associated with
it (the "genesis" issue, origin of life vs. origin of species)?

Nope. We still have too many variables to solve.

You don't grow suspicious of motive when you notice that it is in many
ways indistinguishable from evolution *except* that it requires there be
an intelligence at work controlling the machinery?

What motive? All ID'ers want is that the whole process is discussed and
from that discussion, an individual can make an informed decision. The
evolutionists of today are as bad as the Spanish Inquisitionists. Think my
way or suffer the consequences. Absolutely no tolerance for other points of
view.

You aren't upset that many of the arguments attack problems with human
thought, verifiability, and logic, that are endemic to all thought (ID
included) and as such aren't relevant to science, but to broader
questions of philosophy?

As to the creation of everything, there is no real hard science,
verifability or logic. All there is, is conjecture. Modern science has yet
to determine, without doubt, an answer to the simplest of questions. Why is
there life?

You aren't surprised that an idea is being advanced that rightly belongs
to a metaphysical discussion, not one of practice, and therefore is
orthogonal to a critique on the validity of a theory of speciation?

The incorporeal ream of evolutionists and some of the ID'rs troubles me a
little. However, my faith is cemented in my understanding that the work of
science has nothing to do with the current consensus. Consensus is strictly
political. True science is not. In science consensus is meaningless. The
only truth and relevancy provable and reproducible facts.
"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke
with the consensus." Michael Crichton, 2003 CalTech lecture.

These are some of the problems I have with Intelligent Design. I'd be
interested in knowing how you overcome these.



I love science. I trust in God. I'm promised an answer. This not a non
sequitur.

Dave



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com