Yeah! why can't we get some answers for just a few questions? I'm really
sick of hearing about why evolutionary explanations are no good but not
being given an alterenative - I say this realizing that there has a huge
amount of discussion of this but obviously nothing about that has been
clear to me. Let me ask some more specific questions taking off from
1) Why does ID seem to focus only on biology?
- Is there something specific about living things that requires a
2) Does the history of the physical earth necessarily require "tweeking"
as well? As far as I can see one could easily claim the same
methodological naturalism that is abhorant to evolutionary thinking is
present in geological theorizing. Thus it appears to me that some
overhaul and incorporation of design events in the physical history of the
earth should be expected. Is this not
3) What about the birds above. Did they evolve as speculated by
evolutionists? Did they mostly evolve as evolutionists have suggested but
some aspects where designed extranaturally? Whether they evolved or not
or to some degree, when did they appear on the face of the earth? What it
about the time we see them occur in the fossil record or some time long
before but God in his design withheld them from becoming part of the fossil
record as part of some grander design purpose?
What are the reasons answers can't be given to these questions. Here are a
1) We haven't thought of these questions yet
2) We need to study them more before deciding whether extranatural design
needs to be implicated (if this is the case I still am unclear how one is
going to go about making this decision). Also can you point to more than
three cases where you actually have an answer?
3) We are only a philosophical movement and aren't really concerned about
the real world.
4) We have answers but each member of our movement has contradictory
answers so we have agreed not to talk about these issues and just use lots
of verbage to cover our tracks.
5) Our answer is that evolutionary and geological theory has it about
right but we don't want to appear to be giving any credit to the enemy
Ok, I'm feeling pretty pesky today, but I've been reading posts on these
lists for 4 years now and I still can't answer these simple questions when
someone asks me to define the ID movement. The only definitions I have
include this is what they don't believe (and even then I am not sure).
I've heard complaints about Howard's constant questions about definitions
but then I can't see that he has been answered.
In my first year or so on the lists I actually found ID intriguing. I guess
I was an ID wanna-be but now I look back at that and its like looking back
at when I was a teenager and just couldn't wait for the next album to come
out by some no-name band now - what was I thinking? That band might have
had a fresh sound then but they are like the band Boston once you heard one
tune you've heard them all.
I better quit before I really get going,
R. Joel Duff, Assistant Professor
Dept. of Biology, ASEC 185
Campus Mail 3908
University of Akron
Akron OH, 44325-3908