>>Richard Wein:
From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
Date: 18 August 2000 00:07
Subject: Re: ID unfalsifiable? (was Designed Designers?)
[start extract]
>RW: The hypothesis with which we're concerned here, the "ID hypothesis", is
the assertion that "an intelligent designer was involved in the origin of
life"(or something like that).
>Maybe Richard should take a bit more time to find out first what exactly it
is he is claiming to refute. As I have stated a number of times recently, the
"ID hypothesis" is not about "an intelligent designer" but about intelligent
*design*.
[end extract]
> Richard Wein:So Stephen did not state "ID does not require a designer" in
so many words. But that's the only logical way to interpret his reply.
DNAunion: Absolutely not. The *most* logical way to read the statement
(which means that another of your claims is wrong, i.e., that there is *only
one* logical way to interpret his reply) is just as he stated elsewhere: the
focus of the ID position is not on the *intelligent designer*, but on the
detection of *intelligent design*. Get it yet?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 13 2000 - 12:52:26 EDT