I agree with you.
Peter
John W Burgeson wrote:
>
> 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 - 11:09:31 EST