Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Biochemist
This is how science works. It IS equally valid if it is consistent with the observed, reproducible facts as demonstrated via the scientific method.
|
This is the crux of where I tend to see a problem with some of the ID presentations at present. They do not all prove to be consistant even if the general gist as far as an alternative has merit. But I also think they are on the right general track as far as opening honest dialog which was something the older Creation Science Research(young earth/seven day creation) position could not possible achieve.
One suggestion,and one can take this for what its worth is perhaps try not focus on the who of the Designer, but more on the plan of design, so to speak. ID's who come out of the Christian background would be hard pressed to convince most scientists of the Designer being the God of the Bible. I,who come from that background, do not see any direct evidence the Designer has to be exactly the God presented in the Bible at all. I think some of the arguments and debates we all have had here bare that out. But I have never said even though I tend towards the agnostic position that I fully reject the idea of a designer. However, I am closer to the older deistic views like some of the founders of this country held if I was to actually shift towards the ID camp.
Buffy, often mentions She in place of God. Correct me if I am wrong but the she here would be mother nature. To some the she would also be impersonal in the strict sence. But irrespective if there is some design formed via natural means perhaps then who or whatever designed such would have had enough interest to make the design in the first place. But that's still a far jump from the direct influencing God of the Bible. The only thing in common is design and purpose as far as creation goes. I tend to perfer Buffy's kind of impersonal she, which shares something in common with the older American Indian idea of Father Sky and Mother earth.
