[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[david buchanan]

Ian said:
I think we're mixing up "the argument from intelligent design" with the 
drivel of IDC "creationists".

Arlo replied:
According to Wikipedia, "Intelligent design (ID) is an argument that 
"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by 
an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as
natural selection." ...

dmb says:
Thanks for the reality check here, Arlo. I think it is important to 
understand that "intelligent design" is just creationism in a tuxedo. It 
OUGHT to be identified with the drivel of the creationists and it seems to 
me that Ian has been decieved if he thinks otherwise. Not only is it a 
dishonest attempt to sneak theism in through the back door, it is also 
extemely weak as an argument. It is an argument that is easily defeated by 
its own logic. I mean, the the complexity of the universe is best explained 
by an intelligent cause, then the complexity of the intelligent cause also 
needs a designer. And so does the designer of the designer and so on 
forever.

Arlo also quoted this section of Wiki's article:
"In a leaked memo, commonly known as The Wedge Document, however, the 
supporters of the movement were told, ...Design theory promises to reverse 
the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with 
a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

dmb says:
I would have thought their intentions would be obvious even without this 
leaked memo, but this leaves even less room for doubt. It shows that ID's 
defenders are much more interested in protecting their faith-based beliefs 
than they are in science. It also reveals their intellectual dishonesty, no?

Arlo said:
"Intelligent design", at its core, implies an "intelligent designER". No?

dmb says:
Yes, of course. In fact, calling it an implication seems to be a bit of an 
understandment. ID says that the universe is so complicated that there MUST 
be a Creator. That's the central point of their argument.

Ian said:
The argument is that, evolved, emerged design IS intelligent. The 
intelligent design IS the process of emergence, with no master plan or 
master intellect required or implied.

dmb says:
Well, that's just plain wrong. Isn't it? The idea of natural emergence with 
no master intellect, a.k.a. natural selection, is exactly what ID is most 
interested in opposing. I mean, you're as incorrect as a guy could be here, 
Ian. Its like a whole new level of wrong. Its astonishing, spectacular 
drivel! You taken this art to such heights that its become a form of 
entertainment. Congratulations.

_________________________________________________________________
FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo – buy and sell with people 
you know 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06