Re: ID *does* require a designer! (but it does not need to identify who or what he/it is)

From: Chris Cogan (ccogan@telepath.com)
Date: Wed Oct 11 2000 - 02:40:45 EDT

  • Next message: Chris Cogan: "Evolution Elswhere?"

    >
    > >[...]
    >Stephen
    > >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.

    Richard
    >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.

    Chris
    But, it does need to specify what it means by designer, in *some* sense,
    otherwise there'd be no determinable difference between a designer and a
    non-designer. So, what are the minimal characteristics of the designer that
    ID *does* require?

    In a sense, this is just another way of asking what is really meant by
    "intelligent design," or at least about *part* of what must be meant by it.
    (I'd also like to know things like how we can distinguish between
    intelligent design and unintelligent design, just in case the designer
    turns out not to be intelligent.)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 11 2000 - 02:45:54 EDT