subscribe to our mailing list:
|
SECTIONS
|
 |
|
|
Letters
[Write a Reply]
[Letters Index]
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Intelligent Design |
Gaudia, Gil |
May 05, 2005
|
I enjoyed Taner Edis' article on "The Return of the Design Argument", but I'm curious about an important concept. Are "ID-like" and "ID-lite" separate constructs or are they typos? Sometimes the context suggests a different meaning, but it generally seems to be "ID-like" Can you please clarify?
Gil Gaudia, Ph.D.
|
| Related Articles: |
The Return of the Design Argument
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Intelligent Design |
Gaudia, Gil |
May 16, 2005
|
You say, "In all cases it's 'ID-Lite'. No typos." Yet your article says, "The book produces an overall impression that while the ID movement itself enjoys little support in intellectual circles, some remarkably ID-like(sic)intuitions have wide currency. Most of the writers are concerned to make room for God in the universe described by science, and keep suggesting that Darwinian evolution is inadequate, or that information is something mysterious. Similar themes are emphasized by ID proponents, only more explicitly. The question, then, becomes one of whether or not philosophers and liberal theologians can be counted on to oppose, not just ID, but any 'ID-lite'(sic)theories that may also come along.
Please clarify the difference between "ID-Like" and "ID-Lite".
Gil
|
| Related Articles: |
The Return of the Design Argument
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Intelligent Design |
Edis, Taner |
May 16, 2005
|
>You say, "In all cases it's 'ID-Lite'. No >typos."
Yes. When I say "ID-lite" it's correct. When I say "ID-like" it's also correct. No typos.
Taner
http://www2.truman.edu/~edis/
|
| Related Articles: |
The Return of the Design Argument
|
|
|
