From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>Reflectorites
>
>Re: Behe and design inference: What does it mean?
>
>On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:51:05 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>RW>Stephen Jones even claims that ID does not necessarily entail a
designer.
>>But, if it doesn't entail a designer, what's the point of it? What *does*
it
>>entail?
>
>[...]
>
>On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:53:32 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
>
>Re: Reply to CCogan: Waste and computer evolution
>
>RW>...
>>Stephen Jones, our resident ID proponent, has even claimed that ID does
not
>>require a designer!
>
>[...]
>
>For the umpteenth time I do not claim that "ID does not *require* a
>designer". I claim that ID does not need to specify who (or what) exactly
>the designer(s) is.
I distinctly remember seeing you make such a claim, but I will assume it was
simply a misunderstanding. This is the first time I've seen you deny it. I'm
glad that misunderstanding has now been cleared up.
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 10 2000 - 19:12:07 EDT