Re: Kansas munchkins (as Gould will call them)

Michael,

Concerning what is designed and what is not, I have long had your
understanding of ID: that only those things that can be shown to be
"irreducibly complex" are designed.

We are mistaken, according to my friends in the movement.

Their position, actually stated in several places (incl Behe and Dembski,
though I don't have the references here at home) is as follows.

Only certain things *can be shown to be* irreducibly complex. These things
*require* a design inference *in science.* Other things, such as the whole
of nature, may also be designed in a more traditional religious sense; it's
just that the design inference to a scientifically necessary designer cannot
be made.

This is an important distinction on the theological/philosophical side. I
was confused about this, and you may also be confused about this; they've
shown me chapter and verse, and I have corrected my understanding.

ted
Received on Sun May 22 11:27:37 2005