Re: Reply to CCogan: Waste and computer evolution

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Wed Oct 04 2000 - 04:53:32 EDT

  • Next message: Richard Wein: "Re: The Future for ID"

    From: DNAunion@aol.com <DNAunion@aol.com>

    >>>FMAJ: Why not? If natural selection is an intelligent designer for
    >instance, why are there limits to evolution.
    >
    >DNAunion: That sounds like an oxymoron to me. If you have any kind of
    >intelligence and design involved in the selection process, then it is not
    >NATURAL selection, be definition. What am I missing?

    To be fair, you've probably missed the relevant prior discussion, which I
    don't want to repeat here. But basically the point has been made that ID
    proponents have failed to give a clear definition of what "intelligent
    design" means.

    For the sake of argument, I tend to assume that ID entails the action of a
    conscious being. But this assumption has its problems, and anyway ID
    proponents seem unwilling to commit themselves to such a position.
    Stephen Jones, our resident ID proponent, has even claimed that ID does not
    require a designer!

    Richard Wein (Tich)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 05:02:58 EDT