[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[ian glendinning]

Hi Arlo, DMB, et al ...

Arlo,
Clippy is no problem ... the last half of that rant was not aimed "at"
you anyway :-)

Just one point inserted ...

> [Arlo]
> Okay, let me be as clear as I can. _You_ may  be using the term "intelligent
> design" in a way you may be able to convince me is appropriate, but those
> arguing _for_ "intelligent design" are not interested in emergence, metaphor or
> complexity theories. They are specifically arguing FOR an external, master
> creator who plans, orders and designs the cosmos in predetermined,
> preconceptualized ways... and they mean this _literally_.
>
All I was saying Arlo, that there are circles where the argument FROM
(not FOR) intelligent design is not this literal case .... but I guess
I have to find references to that if I wanted to "prove" a point,
which I don't. (And of course we'd end up in a "what does literal mean
to a MoQ'er anyway" argument .... )

We understand each other.

As DMB says, there is a worthwhile spiritual angle to what this
perennial emerged metaphor means, if we could ever get away from the
2000 year old debate of whether to throw Christians to the lions or
not ... which only ever was the point of me starting this Dawkins
thread .... oh, look he's throwing more Christian's to the lions ....
how boring, yawn.

DMB, does the Eagleton thread do anything for you ?

Ian