Re: CSI was [Re: Comment to Bill Hamilton

John W. Burgeson (burgy@compuserve.com)
Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:20:56 -0500

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Stephen Jones: "Re: The Poll (was Why the Flood can not be in Mesopotamia)"
Next message: Stephen Jones: "Re: 1. a couple of questions, 2. Re: design: purposeful or random? 2/2 & 1/2"
Next message: Stephen Jones: "Re: NTSE #15 2/2"
Previous message: Pim van Meurs: "Re:design, purposeful or random (thermodynamics)"
Maybe in reply to: John W. Burgeson: "CSI was [Re: Comment to Bill Hamilton"

I tried several times to reply to / add to your last remarks on Dembski.
But I think that your grasp of the problem exceeds mine by a sufficient
amount that anything I add would be superflous. I like your "reply from a
theistic scientist" approach -- maybe you'll next post a "reply from a
non-theistic scientist?

(I find that I am very uncomfortable with that term -- "theistic
scientist." Just my background & training, I am sure. I really discovered
this when I wrote the term "non-theistic scientist" above.)

Burgy

Next message: Stephen Jones: "Re: The Poll (was Why the Flood can not be in Mesopotamia)"
Next message: Stephen Jones: "Re: 1. a couple of questions, 2. Re: design: purposeful or random? 2/2 & 1/2"
Next message: Stephen Jones: "Re: NTSE #15 2/2"
Previous message: Pim van Meurs: "Re:design, purposeful or random (thermodynamics)"
Maybe in reply to: John W. Burgeson: "CSI was [Re: Comment to Bill Hamilton"