>If one were to admit that we can and have recognized "design in nature", that
>would not be evidence against evolution per se, but it *would* IMO count
>as evidence against that version of "evolutionism" which holds that the
>process
>is undirected and unanticipated.
Agreed.
Of course this is exactly the way the theory
>is interpreted and explained by Dawkins, Gould, et al., and the way it
>is understood by the majority of practicing scientists, and many in the
>general public. So a "recognition of design in nature", if substantiated,
>would be (at least) quite significant for a proper interpretation of
>evolution.
>
>I really think this is one of Behe's main points, Steve. Do you agree?
You asked Steve, not me, but I agree. My primary bone of contention with
Michael is that I'm not convinced he can devise a truly objective set of
criteria for recognizing design.
Bill Hamilton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr, Ph.D. | Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems | General Motors R&D Center | Warren, MI
William_E._Hamilton@notes.gmr.com
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX) | whamilto@mich.com (home email)