Peter Rust wrote:
"The IA candidates you mention are exactly what I meant by what I wrote
in the parenthesis you quote (cf. also my comments to Dembski's points
15 and 18). But I think these IA must themselves have been created by
God (directly or through other IA or processes created and directed by
God), so at the end of the line you can have none other than the
Christian God.."
While that is my position also, I don't see that it is anything more
(to a non-Christian) than a theological statement. As such, I hold
that it has no meaning as part of science. What is "at the end of
the line" is, while of ultimate importance, not part of a scientific
investigation.
So -- I hold that ID ought not assume any "unembodied intelligence" as
part
of its thesis, but only an IA which, as far as its science goes, is part
of nature.
Dembski & Johnson disagree with me on this, of course, on the grounds
that
an unembodied intelligence cannot be ruled out a priori. Where we
disagree
is not on the truth of the above sentence, but whether the above sentence
can properly
be part of science, or is wholly subsumed under philosophy.
Burgy
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2001 - 10:41:26 EST