"Stephen E. Jones" writes
in message <200005181359.VAA15679@gothic.iinet.net.au>:
> Reflectorites
<snip>
> Dembski is trying to establish scientifically what all human beings
> intuitively recognise. Whether he is able to do this remains to be seen.
> Personally I doubt that it will be possible to absolutely *prove* design.
>
> In everyday life people make their decisions (and even civil
> law cases are decided) `on the balance of probabilities'. It
> would therefore be sufficient for the Designer to only supply
> sufficient evidence that `on the balance of probabilities' there
> is a Designer.
>
> That way no one will be *forced* to believe in a Designer, which
> is important from Christian theology's point of view that only
> willing volunteers (not unwilling conscripts) are wanted in
> Christ's `army'.
I find this quite incoherent. If I determine that the balance
of probabilities in favor of a conclusion is 50.00001%, then I
would be completely irrational to favor it's converse.
In fact, those who do not believe in ID, also argue quite strongly
that the balance of probabilities do *not* support ID and I
agree.
Therefore, your worldview can only make sense with this premise:
Those who don't believe in design actually do believe in design
but refuse to admit it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 18 2000 - 12:16:23 EDT