Re: paleonet Re: suitable discussion

[Nancy Meyer <marsglow@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree, if you are saying that ID is a belief, not a
science, and it has almost nothing to do with creationism,
but instead with final causes.
--- Frank Holterhoff <frank@matricus.com> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion." - George Washington


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. 
http://personals.yahoo.com