Re: The basic problem I have with Intelligent Design

"VBM" <v.mcalister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:P4YZe.3351$zQ3.1856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I have read some of the intelligent design materials and it seems to be
> saying that what we have now is uniquely and amazingly well-suited to fit,
> well, the way things are now. "If X was even very slightly different, we
> would not be able to live on this planet", etc, etc. This makes a very
> large
> logical fallacy: that this end product was a necessity.
>
> They start with the current state of things as if this state of things was
> the ultimate goal, and then work backwards to show that everything fits
> what
> we now have perfectly, and the ODDS of things turning out this way is so
> tremendously low, that it MUST have come about by design. The whole
> watchmaker argument.

It's one of their favorite strawmen!

> Even though I am a Christian and believe that God DID create everything, I
> have to admit that the entire ID argument just doesn't hold up logically
> without a pre-existing belief. The presupposition is that the "current"
> was
> the "goal" (a position that is not self-evident, but a matter of belief,
> and
> a belief which I happen to hold, btw). The response is obviously that
> everything fits because if it did not fit, we would not be here and, here
> is
> the kicker, SOMETHING ELSE WOULD BE HERE! At each stage of possibilities,
> something else could have happened and the universe would then fit THAT
> instead of what we have now.
>
> What I mean is that whatever path the development of the universe took,
> everything would fit that path or it wouldn't be there.
>
> Now, I do believe God created the universe and everything in it. And I DO
> think that God designed every process that is now in place in this
> universe
> and He knew exactly how it would all turn out. And I also believe that He
> has purposefully intervened in His creation when and where it fit His plan
> to do so (a particular event 2000 years ago, for example), and that He
> will
> do so again. And yes, I can FEEL God in the many wonders of the universe
> and
> this planet.

Why exactly do you believe that a god is necessary?

> But I also have to recognize that God very well may have created the world
> to work exactly as it would work without his Divine involvement. He
> created
> it so perfectly that He needs no "fine tuning" as the ID'ers like to call
> it.
>
> In short, the whole ID argument can only be convincing to those, like
> myself, who already believe that this current state of the universe, with
> Man sitting here as we are, is how it had to end up. Thus, it is an
> argument
> that can only preach to the choir, but has no logical or persuasive effect
> to those who do not share this pressuposition. Atheists, I must
> reluctantly
> admit, are right to reject it.
>
> What I find most ironic about the Creationist support of the ID movement
> is
> that most ID scientists (upon whose ideas the entire movement is based)

ROFL...that's rich! "ID scientists"! Please, stop, I can't breathe from
laughing.

> accept that life developed over billions of years from earlier species,
> very
> much as evolution states it. The only real dispute they raise is over
> whether this development could have occured by entirely natural processes.
> All they say is that God had to have directed this process or even, in the
> case of someone like Denton, embedded the "design" into the natural
> process
> so that it would then play out as intended in a way that "seems" entirely
> natural.
>
> One thing I have to say for the leading ID proponents is that they find
> Young Earth Creationism as unfounded, and ridiculous as the evolutionist
> does.
>
> Personally, as a Christian, I have no problem whatsoever with evolution
> having taken place over billions of years exactly as the evidence
> indicates.
> I don't find it in conflict with any correct interpretation of Scripture
> or
> Christian belief.

Neither does it disagree with Joyce's Ulysses.

> So, why should we not accept the explanation provided by
> the almost universal consensus of scientists, Christian and non-Christian
> alike? Why create a false dichotomy between evolution and Scripture which
> does not exist?

Because fundies are so full of *** for believing in Biblical
inerrancy. If the Bible is not inerrant, then the basis for their
belief is gone. Evolution, while not the only science which
discredits Biblical inerrancy, really tweaks their noses.


.

Loading