A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

Tim is right when he suggests that reading involves imputing motives. A lot of our language for discussing is related to the intentions of the people involved. I can read mathematics without any concern for motives or intentions. I cannot read "Gone with the Wind" that way, for those intentions are essential to the story.Faith is correct, that the ascribing of intentions can sometimes be offensive. Where possible, we should be as charitable as possible when imputing motives, so as to minimize the likelihood of being offensive. But we are human, and won't always succeed in being properly charitable.On the question of ID, there are some people who believe that a science can be developed for determining intelligent design. There are others who are taking political action to insert ID into the science curriculum, even though no satisfactory science of ID has yet been demonstrated. It seems to me that it is reasonable to impute different motives to those two groups.That said, let's not spend too much time arguing about the propriety of ascribing intentions.

quote:

---

I cannot read "Gone with the Wind" that way, for those intentions are essential to the story.

​

To the characters, of course, but to the author?

---

You are correct, that I was talking of the intentions of the characters.

quote:

---

As for imputing motives to IDers it is not only rude and arrogant but counterproductive as the task of their opposition is to show their ARGUMENTS wrong.

---

Ideally, and particularly in the science fora, our discussions should be about evidence, facts, tentative facts, etc.In the meantime we should not forget that sometimes threads become dominated by creationists imputing motives to evolutionists (Pakicetus being presented with webbed feet., Peppered Moths and Natural Selection for example).

You won't find it in the OPs. You will find it in the discussion. The two issues are ones that creationists (including several creationist web sites) use to argue that evolutionists are deceptive.Consider this text in Message 173.