From: John Burgeson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 13:33:27 EST
George wrote: "What I did in that earlier post was to explain why it is
>important to deal with >the real ID movement and not merely its scientific
>claims or >problems. ...>"
Which I observed was not at all a response to my question.
"> Let me add that I have not talked about the "motives" of
>IDers in the sense of>trying to get their heads guessing why they say what
>they do. It is>rather a question>of looking at what they actually write
I wish I could think of some way to ask you the question so that you would
address it and not talk about other things. I have tried three times. I have
asked "what about Y" and you have replied "Z is much more interesting to
So be it.
John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
>From: George Murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: John Burgeson <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Fwd: Identity of the ID designer
>Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 16:42:02 -0500
>John Burgeson wrote:
> > Some time ago (I've been on an extended vacation), in response to a
> > George, I wrote:
> > >What I want to do is remove the debate (about ID) entirely away from
> > >discussions of the
> > >IDers themselves, what motivates them -- and just talk about the
> > >
> > >To limit the discussion only to OOLOE (Origin of Life on Earth) is to
> > >simply confine it to that part
> > >of the material world we know most about.
> > >
> > >An archaelogist finds a non-living item "X" and declares that it
> > >have been created by an intelligence, and generally that claim is
> > >seriously for many items "X1, X2, ... " Sometimes, however, item X15
> > >instance) is subsequently judged to have been created through
> > >natural causation. And reasonable scientists then debate that.
> > >
> > >A biologist finds a living item "Y" and declares that it appears to
> > >been created by an intelligence. Generally that claim is NOT taken
> > >seriously
> > >for items "Y1, Y2, ..." even by IDers. But sometimes an IDer will take
> > >seriously for item Y15 (for instance).
> > >
> > >So the division point seems to be between non-living items (or items
> > >appear to be non-living) and living items, presumably on the basis
> > >create a living item of any sort is something beyond the ken of modern
> > >science and therefore ruled out a priori.
> > >
> > >I don't like a priori rules ( as you know) and so I cannot be
> > >with the division, at least as I have stated it.
> > George responded by continuing to discuss the IDers motivations and
> > incorrect (in his opinion) theology.
> > Once again I ask if we can talk about the science, and not about either
> > theology or the motivations of Dembski, Johnson, et. al. I am sure that
> > many those subjects are interesting; they are not interesting to me.
> > My question above was not, as I can detect, addressed since I posted it
> > month ago. I think it is a lot more interesting than questions of IDers
> > theological beliefs or motivations. But perhaps, of course, only to
> What I did in that earlier post was to explain why it is
>important to deal with
>the real ID movement and not merely its scientific claims or
>problems. To focus only on
>the latter is like thinking that Strom Thurmond's States Rights
>presidential campaign of
>1948 (now in the news because of Trent Lott's remarks) could be dealt
>with adequately by
>learned discussions of the 10th Amendment, but without mentioning the
>motives of that campaign.
> (I hope no one will accuse me of portraying IDers as
>segregationists. That isn't
>the point of the analogy.)
> Let me add that I have not talked about the "motives" of
>IDers in the sense of
>trying to get their heads guessing why they say what they do. It is
>rather a question
>of looking at what they actually write and say.
>George L. Murphy
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Dec 18 2002 - 00:22:53 EST