>[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?
>Richard Wein: Oh dear, DNA, I once thought you were a cut above the average
IDer.
DNAunion: And I once thought you would not stoop to twisting someone's words
to save face - I guess we were both wrong.
>Richard Wein: Unfortunately, some of your recent posts, including this one,
have shown that you're just as illogical as the rest of them.
DNAunion: Sorry if I helped point out your error - no need to get nasty.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 05:27:11 EDT