"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker
Duane Bozarth wrote:
...
I'm done...finis. If you care to answer the question of the role of the
ID'er in all this, fine.

Their role would be to better understand the universe and the
world we live in, just like regular folks.

I'm not talking about "they", I'm asking about the whoever/whatever is
THE I in the ID argument. What is it's role in all this? I reiterate
that if there is no intervention, then there is no need. If there is
intervention, then there is no possibility for any science to make the
understanding whether it's performed by ID adherents or not.

So, I ask again--in your view, what is the role of the I in ID after the
(we'll assume for sake of argument) initial event? IOW, is it still
making changes or did it do all the design up front or some combination
of the above?


I have my personal opinions on that but they aren't relevent
to the discussion. My point isn't that my particular beliefs be
taught as science but that science can't rule out a designer.
There is no conflict between understanding things as well
as we are able and recognizing the possibility that it isn't
all a happy accident.


OK, I'll try again--paraphrase the view of the ID'ers on what the role
of THE "I" in ID is playing in the development of speicies since the
beginning as observed by a presumed impartial observer


That he's the designer. How or when he did it is a matter of religion.


---I'm trying to
find out that role and was assuming your view would be the view of the
movement and could explain it in your own words.


The "movement" isn't that specific, anyone that believes in a god
that acted purposely, believes in an intelligent designer.


IOW, does this "nonaccident" have consequences that aren't explicable by
known physical laws?


The problem is that known physical laws don't account for the physical
world's existence, the mind or life in general.