| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Help, I'm having an identity crisis! Am I really one of the Bad Guys? I'm a staunch Christian, though definitely NOT a Creationist, Fundamentalist or Literal-Interpretationist. In fact, I'm really not even a very good Christian, as I'm not big on evangelizing, which is the Great Commission Jesus gave to all Christians. But I'm also VERY staunchly pro-Evolution, Science, Truth, Reason, etc. I am not a professional paleontologist; for those wondering why I'm even here, I have a paleontology education (MS), worked as a petroleum geologist for 20 years (until 8 years ago), and have been a lifelong fossil collector/fan of Science in general. I have my own views, and while I might disagree with those of others, I would never invalidate or ridicule them (that's part of why I'm not a better evangelist). I will however always stand up against disingenuous convoluted logic, and malice, when those are used as weapons in the Evolution/Creation conflict. And, believe me, neither side has a monopoly on those! For a while now here, it seems that ID has been lumped with the mindless invalidation of observeable phenomena and reasonable interpretation, as well as the disingenuous support of Creationism/refutation of Evolution by bogus science, practiced by many Creationists. Based on my understanding of the term when I first heard it, I've come to regard myself as an IDer. I thought that ID was a way of looking at things that was able to reconcile the undeniable observations of the world, and their reasonable interpretation, with faith that a Creator exists. To me, Evolution, The Big Bang, Relativity, how neurons & synapses produce consciousness, etc. etc. are all part of how He set things up to run. I thought that ID was a way for those of Faith to acknowledge observeable phenomena, rather than trying to discredit them as formal Creationists do much of the time. I would never for a second claim that, at present, there's any scientific evidence for a Creator; I didn't realize any proponent of ID did, as some here seem to assert. Maybe I haven't read enough about ID yet. However, there's also no scientific evidence that a Creator doesn't exist (this of course gets to the "absence of evidence vs. evidence of absence" discussion of a few days ago). Based on that, I see ID as a reasoned, reasonable view for a person of Faith, Occam's Razor notwithstanding (I didn't say the MOST reasonable). Therefore, I can't see where there's an attack on Science. So, I guess I've made everybody read through my life story just to ask the question: Do I not understand the term Intelligent Design correctly? Or am I one of the Bad Guys after all? F Dr. Lisa E. Park wrote: > Dolf's own closing remarks mentioned ID and how we must continue > discussing and challenging this attack on science. -- Frank K. Holterhoff MATRICuS Inc. Physical Design Engineer 570 South Edmonds Lane, Suite 101 972-221-1614 ext. 18 Lewisville, Texas 75067 fax: 972-420-6895 USA frank@matricus.com www.matricus.com
Partial index: