From: "Robert Comer" 

> If you believe that being a Christian implies a belief in ID, you are
> talking about a VERY different thing from the ID concept that is used when
> people discuss evolution.

Not that different, but really, I haven't said anything on the subject
other than I'm a Christian and with that there is a belief in ID.

Note that I never said one way or another whether I supported teaching ID
in schools alongside evolution, but I'll say it now -- I don't -- it's not
something that should be taught in a biology class.

> The "ID" I am talking about really does justify my remark,
which is NOT
> offensive, and is very called for.

Sorry, no, you were talking to *me*.

>I am NOT talking about belief in
> Christianity. ID is only a few years old - it is not part of Christianity!

You can't totally separate the two since a Christians obviously believe in
intelligent design (the meaning of ID, not the new movement necessarily --
I'm sure you'll find Christians who support the new ID too.)

> I Googled "define:faith" and found the following (if you can
do better,
> please let me know):

Close enough.

> Some scientists could have a faith in a particular line of reasoning - a
> belief for which they HOPE to find evidence. But that is not what science
> is about, and no scientist appeals to faith to support a particular point
> of view.

I just don't agree with that statement, it kind of goes back to the axioms
Tony was talking about.

> Perhaps you would outline what you think are comparable faiths in religion
> and science.

Faith is faith.

--
Bob Comer


"John Beckett"  wrote
in message news:8o7rn1to1jv4fkkrvk3jj2t4qnt9p2nadv{at}4ax.com...
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news::
>> I don't think anyone here has stated that, and I know I haven't. (we're
>> arguing past each apparently other here.)  I have yet to say anything
>> about
>> ID other than that I was a Christian. (which implies a belief in
>> intelligent
>> design)
>
> If you believe that being a Christian implies a belief in ID, you are
> talking about a VERY different thing from the ID concept that is used when
> people discuss evolution.
>
>> >In fact, ID is meaningless waffle designed
>> > to make people who haven't thought about the issues believe that there
>> > is
>> > scientific proof for various peculiar belief systems.
>>
>> That is offensive and uncalled for.
>
> The "ID" I am talking about really does justify my remark,
which is NOT
> offensive, and is very called for. I am NOT talking about belief in
> Christianity. ID is only a few years old - it is not part of Christianity!
>
>> May be, but we're arguing the same point, that being that even in science
>> there are components of "faith".
>
> I Googled "define:faith" and found the following (if you can
do better,
> please let me know):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
> [There are several aspects to the word "faith" - following is just one
> from above]
> "Most Jews, Christians and Muslims admit that whatever particular evidence
> or reason they may possess that their God exists and is deserving of
> trust, is not ultimately the basis for their believing. Thus, in this
> sense faith refers to belief beyond evidence or logical arguments,
> sometimes called "implicit faith"."
>
> Some scientists could have a faith in a particular line of reasoning - a
> belief for which they HOPE to find evidence. But that is not what science
> is about, and no scientist appeals to faith to support a particular point
> of view.
>
> Perhaps you would outline what you think are comparable faiths in religion
> and science.
>
> John
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5