From: DNAunion@aol.com <DNAunion@aol.com>
>>>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?
Oh dear, DNA, I once thought you were a cut above the average IDer.
Unfortunately, some of your recent posts, including this one, have shown
that you're just as illogical as the rest of them.
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 : Fri Oct 13 2000 - 23:56:24 EDT