Re: Kansas munchkins (as Gould will call them)

Please send chapter and verse and I may recant. Otherwise someone will have
to design a suitable stake for me

BTW On my bike ride Intelligent Design did not come into play as I did not
fall off, even though I went down a recently tarmaced road with loose gravel
but I kept my speed down to 25 instead of 40!
On ascents - I did about 1500 feet of climbing - my haemoglobin must have
been having an off-day as I was slower than usual.
I did detect intelligent design in an upland river - a man-made weir. I
would have preferred one made by a beaver but we need to re-introduce them.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>; <gmurphy@raex.com>;
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 4:25 PM
Subject: 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 17:42:49 2005