Gregory,
What exactly is "insufficient" about my quoting of Bill Dembski in this
context? Here, for example, is the opening sentence from the "general
introduction" of "Debating Design," written by Bill and Michael Ruse
together. Presumably, this is an authoritative definition of ID that you
cannot regard as "insufficient" without disagreeing with Dembski himself:
"ID is the hypothesis that in order to explain life it is necessary to
suppose the action of an unevolved intelligence." How exactly does my use
of his term in a relevant context "disappoint" you "entirely"? It can't be
my tactics, since the use of Dembski's terminology and concepts when
commenting on those very terms and concepts as employed by ID advocates is
beyond criticism; there is no more authoritative source on ID than Bill, and
as the opening sentence in a work from Cambridge University Press it has to
be taken as a very serious definition of ID. So, what exactly disappoints
you here?
Also, Gregory, I'm completely puzzled, not disappointed, by your comment
here:
"Gosh I'm glad that I'm not fixated (read: fetished) these days on
'intelligent + design' like so many people (apparently) are in America!"
I don't get your point at all, Gregory. Not at all. If you asked me to
summarize it in my own words, I'd flunk that quiz.
Ted
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Apr 20 10:55:16 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 20 2009 - 10:55:16 EDT