For openers read one of my first threads on this forum:
Is ID properly pursued.
I think such theistic evos are clearly IDers. They believe an Intelligent Designer (God) created the universe, ...
The same could be said about any faith that involves creation myths, and as noted you could also call all such people creationists, however this is diluting the meaning of the terms to be less specific.
I think other theistic evos are likewise IDers, whether they realize or not, because they believe there is an Intelligent Force behind the creation and existence of the universe,...
The problem here that I see is that randman is setting up equivocating between this diluted use of ID to include all people of faith with then equating them to the hard-core ID/creationist camp, those that claim that ID is science and not faith.
I think such theistic evos are clearly IDers.
And equally clearly creationists ... in the loose use of these terms. But that doesn't mean they suddenly accept "irreducible complexity" or "specific complexity" or "information" or a young earth.
The issue of ID is not about belief, when we are talking about ID in schools etc (the reason for the ID concept creation btw), but whether it is science or philosophy.
I don't think any "theistic evo" here or elsewhere would be concerned about ID discussions in philosophy or comparative religion classes: the question comes down to whether we are talking about science in science classes or trying to talk about something that is non-science.
Personally I think we can take the concept of ID and use it to introduce people to science and testable perceptions of reality - if it is properly pursued.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : grammar
Edited by RAZD, : added.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
™ Version 4.2
