Razd or anyone interested in responding, please pardon my confusion/ignorance. If you’d prefer I don’t insult your ‘intelligence’ or ‘schema’ of evolution, please so state To me, some measure of STRAWMAN fallacy, seems to occur betimes by many EvC forum members, even you and I.
That design itself must be invoked by a form of faith-deduction, as ID-Man accurately stated, may indeed be STRAWMAN to your argument, that is, your homemade definition of religious faith. Well your definition, my definition, Websters, or any other definition of your religious faith (or lack thereof), seems fatally oversimplified.
Because you (and I) don’t really have a full handle on what faith is (by your lack of definition(s)) I declare your logical construction as philosophical chicanery.
And to sub-classify ID as a form of faith (vs. object of faith) seems a grammatically incorrect. Are not Intelligent Design and Redemptive ID objects of religious faith, and not a substance of faith. Would you classify ‘the Christ’ as a faith or an object?
What about you, Philip, or AdminNozy? Are they (or the metaphysical portion of their beings) me objects of religious faith? What about when they intelligently design computer applications and such? Something eludes me here and may be insulting.
Why bother to even declare ID as a form of faith or the object of faith, anyway?
My STRAWMAN can just as easily state: Was faith ‘invented’ by evolution according to your design schema of evolution? Now, see how I just invoked arbitrary points to advertise my ID agenda?
Or, tell me what you and/or AdminNozy really believe faith is. Is it a faith as defined by Websters? If that's the case, have you or AdminNozy really experienced the Webster's definition of religious faith? What about love, light, matter, energy, and so forth? How much have you really experienced any of those lately?
...Are (any of) you seriously trying to purport that ID, though so conceptual and metaphysical is merely an object or form of baneful beliefs, biases, set(s) of values, paradigms, and/or agendas, etc. so that you might dismiss ID?
Now the rest of this (below) may be steering off-topic:
I hope you’re not playing anti-Christ by refuting redemptive-ID as (merely) a form of 'Christian Faith' (i.e., the faith that states Christ entered into death to redeem our sins)? That same Christ is written as Alpha and Omega, The Beginning of the Creation of God, etc. Genesis 1.1-3 also declares EX NIHILO creation, not Do-loops
Your first post harps on ‘do loops’ as a fallacy of ID (which I agree). Yet my ID-faith cries out that: for-endfor, scan-endscan, do-while and/or do-enddo statements (in FoxPro terminology) must precede any and all do-loops (as per the Gen 1.1-3 EX NIHILO faith-agenda).
I also remind you ID is very actively employed by ‘scientific’ programmers and their languages. Does that make their faith void? Why, programmers even use Create as a command for making tables, databases, projects, reports, libraries, classes, forms, and SQL queries, to mention a few. Should we take ‘Create’ or other ID terms out of our computer language(s)?
™ Version 4.2
