Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 20:15:08 EDT
In a message dated 9/26/03 11:42:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > Dembski wrote:
> > "If evolutionary biologists can discover or construct detailed, testable,
> > indirect Darwinian pathways that account for the emergence of irreducibly
> > and minimally complex biological systems like the bacterial flagellum, then
> > more power to them--intelligent design will quickly pass into oblivion."
> That's an interesting statement, not only for its expression of willingness
> for ID to be shown superfluous, but for raising the following question:
I countered Steve over this remark when he made it and he's produced it again
and it's attributed to Dembski and that might suggest I was mistaken in
casting a cynical eye when steve first wrote the statement. Not so fast. I don't
believe we need to make the evolutionary biologists go through hoops for
intelligent design to pass into oblivion.The fact that people like Dembski are still
making demands like that, only slows down the acceptance of a new paradigm
that began in earnest when Kevin MacDonald, the evolutionary psychologist, found
an evolutionary strategy in Judaism proving that human religious groups
functioned as adaptive (Darwinian) units. This is the most amazing achievement to
have happened in religious studies and it is relatively unknown even here where
it should be known because of its implications. Its implications are moral and
sociobiological, not geological or physical.
God is ineffable. All you can do is study his manifestations. You can't study
how God designed "what is." You study "what is" to see God's design.
Ludwig wittgenstein was giving a lecture. (paraphrase)
A student stood and asked if there was a heaven.
Wittgenstein said sit down.
The student asked again.
Wittgenstein said he could only answer questions of science.
Heaven was not a matter of science, it was a matter of faith.
Wittgenstein said - now sit down.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 20:15:40 EDT