Me:
>This results in the practical exlcusion of any interpretation in the light of
>intelligent design. Thus, the evidence uncovered by science is not evidence
>for a non-intelligent cause over an intelligent cause, it is only evidence
to
>support ways a non-intelligent cause could have produced something. In
>science, a non-intelligent cause for a biotic phenomenon is never tested
>against an intelligent cause for such phenomena.
Susan:
>how would you propose that be done? So far intelligent design consists of
>"it looks designed to me."
Which is not much different than naturalistic evolution which consists of "it
looks
evolved to me."
>What if the very same thing doesn't look
>designed to the person standing next to me? How would you figure out
>whether it's *actually* designed or not?
Well, first you'd need to determine if that other person has a fair and open
mind.
If they have an axe-to-grind against ID, nothing you can say matters. Now,
I've already spoken to these questions of yours. And although you obviously
read
my contributions to this list, you choose to ignore it and keep asking
questions
as if they had not been answered. This indicates to me you don't have a fair
and open mind on this issue. Thus, to be quite blunt, I could care less if
you
are not convinced that something is designed.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 03 2000 - 22:55:43 EST