From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 08:45:59 EDT
Josh wrote----
However, ID in the real world, advocated by Dembski et al, is not
> bananas (unless you think bananas means credible hypothesis useful in
> describing natural and perhaps unnatural phenomena.)
>
Please tell me Josh what has ID explained. ID sounds good on paper but it
has not delivered the goods.
That is what Glenn and Howard are trying to say.
What natural phenomena has been explained by ID. As far as I can see they
only identify ID when something cannot be explained. This is both in Behe
and with Dembski's filter.
I dont whether it is bananas or rhubarb but ID has no explanatory powers and
is a faith stance.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 12:00:09 EDT