Steve Petermann wrote:
.................................
> The burden of proof on this issue lies not on those who
> believe in God's ongoing intelligent design activity but on those who reject
> it.
If I remember correctly, this is what started this thread, & I fail to see
its logic. ID is being presented as a scientific claim, & when new scientific models or
theories are introduced, the burden of proof is on their proponents. The burden of
proof for string theories is on string theorists, not on those who presently find their
arguments unconvincing.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sat Nov 29 12:05:15 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Nov 29 2003 - 12:05:17 EST