From: "Gary Britt" 

Again you keep arguing against a strawman.  That strawman is YOUR
definition of an ID advocate and what they say.  ID can be advocated based
*solely* upon the gaps in the scientific evidence and the fantastically
high probabilities against non-life becoming something alive and then
becoming modern man all through a billion happy coincidences and chance
conditions being exactly right at every one of the billions of exactly
right times. References to other books are entirely unnecessary.

Gary

"Steve Ewing"  wrote in message
news:op.s0bcoiapsagvys{at}news.barkto.com...
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:40:52 -0500, Gary Britt 
> wrote:
>
> > These same people then deride *faith* as though its not
> > scientific without even attempting to acknowledge the level of *faith*
> > they use everyday in their *belief* systems.
>
> I think it's a matter of degree.
>
> A scientist publishes a peer-reviewed paper.  In it, he describes fossils
> of horse-like animals, uncovered in different geological layers, and
> progressing in features from a more-primitive to a more-modern appearing
> horse-like animal.  There are gaps in the progression.  I am likely to
> *believe* his assertion that the gaps can be filled when more fossils are
> uncovered.  I will also revise that belief if the assertion is disproved:
> it is not a blind faith that this theory *must* be true to the dismissal
> of all evidence to the contrary.
>
> An IDer holds up a book written thousands of years ago by persons unknown,
> and says that an Intelligent Designer created all those fossils and placed
> them carefully in those layers in that precise order, just to jerk the
> above scientist's chain.  That's a different kind of *faith*.
>
> --
> Steve 
> http://www.qmss.com/~sewing

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