In a message dated 7/23/00 10:07:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rwein@lineone.net writes:
<< To say that IC is evidence for ID is like saying that finding presents at
the foot of a Christmas tree is evidence for Santa Claus. (For the sake of
argument, I'm setting aside the question of whether IC has actually been
adequately defined.) That is, it is an observation which could be explained
by the hypothesis, but science (or rational thinking) should reject this
explanation because there is a more parsimonious explanation which is
consistent with the data.
To use the phrase "X is evidence for Y" in this way is to devalue it almost
to the point of worthlessness.
Richard Wein (Tich) >>
My sentiments exactly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 05:09:01 EDT