I am sorry to send this again, but I want it properly threaded. Here in beijing I can't use my outlook to send messages right now.
George wrote:
>>>>
Glenn, you've fallen for the elementary ambiguity about the meaning of "intelligent design" that the IDers always like to exploit. Belief that God has "intelligently designed" the universe does NOT require a belief that "intelligent design" must be an explicit part of scientific theories. The very fact that they (when pushed) have to admit that there are "intelligently designed" systems that don't have the designers "fingerprints all over" demonstrates that sufficiently.
It is embarassing that you can say sarcastically that Michael (& presumably other ASA members) believe that God "couldn't possibly have been involved in creation," as if rejection of ID in the 2d sense were a denial of belief in creation. I expect that kind of ignorance from Ms. O'Leary after reading her book but not from you. <<<<
I had no more than hit send on a message to a friend telling him that on the ASA side, I am viewed as the village idiot when I saw your kind note. It kinda demonstrates my point.
It also demonstrates that there is very little concern here for actually having design. Lots of 'we beleive in design' statements from everyone, but to use a Wittgensteinian approach, it is not much different than saying "I believe in aliens"
Slobbering, and drooling, I must now limp back to my job as an envelope wetter--the only job the poor village idiot can hold down.
Received on Sun May 22 18:38:34 2005