Re: Kansas munchkins (as Gould will call them)

>
>
> I agree, however, that to limit detectable design to certain things, is to
> risk falling into the God of the Gaps type of argument.
>
> "Undetectable design" is undetectable because God has carried out that
> design through natural processes. Both good theology & good science then
> suggest that we continue to look for natural processes through which
> supposdly "detectable" design has been carried out. But IDers don't want to
> do that because they *want* the design to remain "detectable" - i.e., not
> explained scientifically.
> & by doing this they don't "risk" falling into a GoG view. They have not
> just fallen but have happily jumped into it.
>
>
George,

I was actually agreeing that there are weaknesses in the ID GoG view, but
taking issue with Michael's interpretation of Behe. I most humbly beg your
forgiveness for not being strident enough in my denunciation and using
language that was far too mild.

I assume you must have noticed that there has been a significant change in
my views towards the TE position. But I'm not really into this slagging
people off business (apart from unfogiveably when I sent a couple of pretty
sharp off-list responses to Michael, for which I sincerely apologise).

Iain.

Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
>
>

-- 
-----------
There are 3 types of people in the world.
Those who can count and those who can't.
-----------