Does the so-called Intelligent Designer have other qualities that are discernible to us?
We say we can stand in awe of the mind that engineered, say, an eyeball. But does the eye so designed give us other clues as to something else this designer is capable of?
For instance, is this designed eye leading us to conclude that we have a moral purpose to use the eye judiciously?
Is the Engineer also a Conductor?
It seems to me if ID proponents want this theory to succeed, more must be known about the designer behind it all. I would like to learn more along these lines, using the science of ID (of course) to instruct us.
So, what do we know?
And the whole point of the anti-ID crowd is to get atheistic, amoral materialism in the back door dressed in kinky boots, with a restorative treatment to rehabilitate the matriarchy and accompanied inevitably by spending patterns to make media lick its chops gluttonously.
Herrin morale. Settin' on his knees.
The "painted monkeys" of ID are being used by the establishment of ID Inc. The guys like Behe and Myer are merely pawns because they try to justify their positions within a gospelmof scientific method. In Behes new book for instance, he stipulates to the full aspects of the scientifc principles of things like evolution. This , according to the Discovery Institute Inc, is a major departure from their credo. They are into an all encompassing worldview in which ID stands for ecverything from Biology to pasta recipes. I predict that we shall soon see the first major schism in the ID Inc monolith.
Can the Designer do anything else? Why not? The boys have made him, dressed him up, and given him his own TV show. Hell, he can do anything he damn pleases.
Im not the one publishing a book that goes counter to the Discovery Institutes credo for a JESUS centered universe. Ive responded to this threads point with fact. Youve responded with your typical call to emotional response. I suppose you will now not read Behe just like you dont read any other scientific or quasi scientific pieces of literature.
ACtually, if I include the YECs and The OECs wed have a fistfight amog 4 different credos.
ONWRD XTN SLDRS (IM for Xtns)
And so what if they don't agree?
RLQuote:And so what if they don't agree?
Then Id believe that the fundamental differences that IDers have from Creationists would make a substantive schism inthe movements. After all, Behe (the IDers) agrees with mainstream science on most issues , so he could really be a problem to strict Creationists YEC's .
I believe that , youve try to hide in therather large clot of "believing" scientists and all those bogus statistics about belief as a central core of "most " of the countrywhen, after all, when viewed dispassionately, many of the believing scientists do NOTAT ALL accept the strict Biblical interpretations that you seem to preach. (Floods, Sudden Appearances, YECism, No evolution , no fossil record, no geological processes of a really old erth, no physical chemical testing methods valid, no physics (magnetism) that suggests an old dynamic earth, ) generally, you believe that most all science is fundamentally flawed in its collective abilities to dte, predict,interpret.
When significant numbers of your "monolithic" organization actually show widely different beliefs, I call that more than a "so what".
I could be wrong, but Im not.
I'm always getting criticised and I'm coherent.
It's all about rumpy-pumpy. That's coherent.
300 million Americans weren't poofed into existence.