>Glenn Morton commented as follows:
>" And I don't see anyway of detecting the progressive creationist
>fingerprints either."
>
>The fact that YOU don't see a way is not a very strong argument, of
>course. Would you agree that PJ and Demski at least thing they can see a
>way?
I would agree that they think they can see a way to detect DESIGN, but not
PC. I don't recall Demski ever saying that he was defending PC, just
design. What I disagree with is that they do see a way. I have pointed
out numerous times that in Dembski's PSCF article in Sept 1997, p. 186, he
got the definition of Complex specified information backwards. That does
not inspire confidence that they have see the light. Even Stephen Meyer in
a phone conversation with me agreed that Dembski blew it there.
>
>Then you say:
>
>"So if I can't detect them with PC, I might as well be
>an evolutionist because as near as I can see all PC does is add an
>untestable assumption to evolution."
>
>Again, not a strong argument. IMHO.
While not a strong argument, I haven't seen anyone postulate a workable way
to detect PC. Even Dembski is not trying
>
>As I see it, to be a PC is, at least today, a philosophical position, not
>a scientific one. I am, of course, a PC. It cannot, by my understanding
>of "proper" science, be a scientific position.
And I don't disagree with you on this. And I don't begrudge your acceptance
of PC. If it were scientific, then there would be a way to detect PC. The
fact that you acknowledge that it is not a proper scientific position,
implies that you do understand what I am saying.
>
>I am not one of those who sees philosophy as being "2nd class" wrt
>science, of course. Just different.
>
>Good to be back -- grandchild #6 arrived in good health and al that!
Glad to hear that. Man, I am waiting on my first and thinking it may never
happen.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution