Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 37 (131114)
08-06-2004 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by contracycle
07-29-2004 6:43 AM


atheist \ agnostic ... let's call the whole thing off (topic)
this is off topic and easily settled with the dictionary definitions.
Atheist Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com (especially see denial)
Agnostic Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com (especially see 1b)
how about stopping this semantic bicker and get back to the topic? thanks.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by contracycle, posted 07-29-2004 6:43 AM contracycle has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 37 (131130)
08-06-2004 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rubystars
07-19-2004 2:58 PM


quibbles
As a deist I have a couple of quibbles:
(1) (minor) your position sometimes seems closer to deism than mainstream theism, but it could just be in the limited information provided here (). You may want to fit "DE" into your lists to see the effect (and could you include YEC\OEC for creationists just to fill it out)?
(2) (also minor)
Rubystars writes:
Are natural processes sufficient to produce the designs we see in nature?
AE: Yes ... TE: Yes ... ID: No
I would change ID to "not always" as several natural processes are allowed, and they also make use of the 'micro\macro' evolution distinctions. OR change the question to "... produce all the designs ..." except this distinction doesn't seperate ID from CE.
(3) (the main one)
Rubystars writes:
Can you be a creationist (one who rejects evolution and believes in special creation) and still hold this position?
AE: No ... TE: No ... ID: Yes
Here I have to disagree with your ID position, as the logical implications of ID preclude YEC and OEC -- it says that the work could be done by an alien race of beings, which is contradictory to any biblical model, and further, that even if ID is shown there is no reason to then assume a biblical creation god from the evidence. One does not map to the other.
The failure of many christians to see this basic contradiction is in part due to the fact that the movement was started as a trojan horse for political purposes (changing school courses) and because it is heavily promoted to christians.
I find that ID seems to make some basic assumptions with regard to the relative importance of earth, biological life, and especially people that are not derived from the basic precepts as presented, and that this severely weakens their arguments as well as unrealistically restricts the areas of investigation (ie - there is no need for evolution to be excluded by ID if properly pursued). You will find more thoughts along these lines at my is ID properly pursued? forum.
I thought your POM post was also inciteful, and shows growth with increased knowledge and desire for education.
and BTW, welcome to the fray, here.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rubystars, posted 07-19-2004 2:58 PM Rubystars has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024