----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Mandell" <amandell@jpusa.org>
To: "glenn morton" <mortongr@flash.net>; "Adam Crowl" <qraal@hotmail.com>;
<asa@calvin.edu>; <evolution@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Independent support for Behe's thesis?
> I have slowly abandonded much of ID because of the type of God it seems to
> demand and for the many fine responses to locked down intervention on this
> list but this sort of stuff below is really disturbing. I would have
> imagined the ID movement a sort of sharpening stone for anyone who wishes
> to have to slop removed from their ideas. There are still so many
mysteries
> maybe they will come across something useful but with mindsets like this
> you will never see it. Again not into ID myself but something beyond the
> personal attack tone bugs me. The insinuations against Chen's integrity
are
> weak.
> Andrew
Once again, I presented that to refute the idea of independent verification
of Behe's thesis. If there is a connection between DI and Chen, then the
verification is NOT independent. The argument that makes everyone nervous
clearly refutes the independent part of the claim. Like it or not.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 02 2000 - 21:50:39 EDT