From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 23:33:15 EDT
Hi Richard,
I need to back track because I didn't notice the 'science' after ID. Sorry,
my eyes are not great anymore at these font sizes. I don't think there is
an ID science. To believe in intelligent design is required for a proper
understanding of the universe if the universe is designed. But it isn't
possible to have an ID science.
Sorry about my misunderstanding of what you were saying.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of richard@biblewheel.com
>Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 9:09 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: One Simple Question
>
>
>Glen wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Richard, you asked
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>> >Behalf Of richard@biblewheel.com
>> >Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 7:37 PM
>> >To: asa@calvin.edu
>> >Subject: One Simple Question
>> >
>> >
>> >In post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0650.html Glen
>> >responded to
>> >my question
>> >
>> >>Also, my point was that if we do live in an
>> >>ID universe, which you admit to be possible,
>> >>then it would seem that ID science would be
>> >>*necessary* to correctly understand our
>> >>universe. Is this correct?
>> >
>>
>> To have a correct understanding, yes, to be able to prove or demonstrate
>it
>> unequivocally, no. as with math, there are true statements which can't be
>> proven true.
>>
>>
>>
>
>OK - this is getting close. We agree that we need ID science for a correct
>understanding. Now there are two questions
>
>1) What is the correct design of this ID Science?
>2) How do you support your assertion that proof would be impossible?
>
>
>Richard Amiel McGough
>Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
>http://www.BibleWheel.com
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 23:34:56 EDT