Re: What does ID mean?

Glenn R. Morton (
Fri, 01 May 1998 19:23:49 -0500

At 02:34 PM 5/1/98 -0500, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>So what you offer is eternal unknowing? We can never know therefore we can
>>believe whatever we want but won't ever be able to know. That view reduces
>>all experience knowledge to mere belief.
>Dear Glenn,
>Humility that is all! Let us not exaggerate the power of our brains.
>Remember we have a difficult time explaining the very organ we use to do the

While I fully agree that we will never know everything and there will
always be unresolved issues, it does not logically follow that we can
therefore know nothing. We can know the distance to SN1987. It is not a
matter of opinion. Similarly, we can know that the lower rocks are the
older rocks and equally we can know that in the older rocks there are no
modern forms. We can know that there is a nested hierarchy of biomolecular
similarity which does not fit the concept of individually created species.

>There is a marked difference between giving explanations and claiming that
>such explanations are either correct or final. A little humility goes a long
>way. As to physics, physicists make big claims but such claims never leave
>the physics community and are nothing compared with the claims made by

There is also a big difference between giving explanations which have a
chance to be true, and holding on to concepts that have many observational
facts which contradict it. It is not unhumiliferous (coined a new word) to
know that a given view is false based upon observational data.

There is also a big difference between giving an explanation and not giving
any explanation.

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information