On Sun, 04 May 1997 18:56:39 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[...]
>SJ>...Since you could have invoke "Occam's razor" from the beginning
(and thus ruling out >intelligent design apriori), which is it to be? "Occam's
razor" or "poor design'?
PM>Both. It depends on your argument. The flounder shows evidence
>of poor design but if you want to use the argument that it shows
>flexible design to save your thesis then Occam applies.
This is irrational Pim. You claim that "The flounder shows evidence
of poor design", but if I try to show it is not "poor design" then
you claim that "Occam's razor" rules my defence out of court! Your
argument is therefore unfalsifiable.
[...]
>PM>Huraah, we agree on one thing that evolution is taking place. We
>just disagree on the necessity of an intelligent designer for this
>to happen.
>SJ>No. We don't agree that it's not "evolution...taking place" at
>all. *You* believe it is "evolution". *I* believe it is *Mediate
>Creation*.
PM>The creator created a fish genome allowing it to adapt to
>environmental changes and ecological niches. You claim this to be
>mediate creation for which no evidence exists
No. You rule out any "evidence" for "design" apriori, using "Occam's
Razor". For you therefore "no evidence exists" because your mind is
closed to even the possibility of such "evidence". To test this,
please state in advance what "evidence" you would accept that
"mediate creation...exists".
BTW I have aksed this last question several times but you always
delete it without answering. If you do it once more I will know it isn't
an oversiight!
PM>I claim that such is explained by the inherent ability of genetic
>information to mutate and be selected for. Whether or not at the
>beginning there was a creator is irrelevant for the process of
>evolution and from a scientific viewpoint cannot even be addressed
>since it fails the tests of scientific hypothesis.
You continue with your irrationality here too Pim. You claim in one
breath that "no" scientific "evidence exists for "mediate creation",
yet in the next you say "from a scientific viewpoint" it "cannot even
be addressed"! Please make up your mind!
[...]
>SJ>Why not? An "all powerful" God is not obliged to make
>everything perfect. The Bible nowhere claims He has. And I have
>given good reasons why God might create "sub-optimal" design
>previously.
PM>I am impressed, you believe in an all powerful god but when
>confronted with sub-optimal design you claim that there was no reason
>for god to design well. Sounds like a hypothesis which cannot be
>proven wrong.
No. I said that "God is not obliged to make everything perfect" not
"there was no reason for god to design well". That God has designed
"well" is shown by life's survival as an immensely complex,
self-balancing system, over 3.5 billion years.
>SJ>Moreover, God is not obliged to use all his omnipotence:
PM>How convenient.... But not very convincing.
Why not? God is a Person, not an automaton who must use all his power
all the time.
[...]
>PM>So god did not predict this change in diets?
>SJ>I cannot see how you get this. If Adam sinned, God "predicted"
>that Adam would die: "but you must not eat from the tree of the
>knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely
>die." (Gn 2:17)
PM>Quite simple you claim that the change in diet caused the
>problems, if god had been able to foresee this why would he have
>used such a suboptimal design?
Presumably to make good his warning that if Adam disobeyed he
would "surely die".
>PM>But your assertion that the prostate needs to have an selective
>advantage is mistaken. Evolution does not require disappearance of
>features if they do not have a selective advantage.
>SJ>That's correct. "Evolution does not require" anything!
PM>Perhaps you would like to re-read my response and realize that I
>did not say this? Nor do you address my remark.
I did "address" your "remark", which is more than I can usually say
for you! I said "`Evolution does not require' anything". If the
prostate developed in the first place, that is because it had a
"selective advantage". If the prostate "disappeared" it would be
because it didn't have a "selective advantage". If the
prostate didn't "disappear" that is because "Evolution does not
require disappearance of features if they do not have a selective
advantage". What then *does* "Evolution....require"?
Berlinski asks this question:
"Once asked, such questions tend to multiply like party guests. If
evolutionary theory cannot answer them, what, then, is its use? Why
is the Pitcher plant carnivorous, but not the thorn bush, and why
does the Pacific salmon require fresh water to spawn, but not the
Chilean sea bass? Why has the British thrush learned to hammer
snails upon rocks, but not the British blackbird, which often starves
to death in the midst of plenty? Why did the firefly discover
bioluminescence, but not the wasp or the warrior ant; why do the bees
do their dance, but not the spider or the flies; and why are women,
but not cats, born without the sleek tails that would make them even
more alluring than they already are? Why? Yes, why? The question,
simple, clear, intellectually respectable, was put to the Nobel
laureate George Wald. "Various organisms try various things," he
finally answered, his words functioning as a verbal shrug, "they keep
what works and discard the rest." But suppose the manifold of life
were to be given a good solid yank, so that the Chilean sea bass but
not the Pacific salmon required fresh water to spawn, or that ants
but not fireflies flickered enticingly at twilight, or that women but
not cats were born with lush tails. What then? An inversion of
life's fundamental facts would, I suspect, present evolutionary
biologists with few difficulties. Various organisms try various
things. This idea is adapted to any contingency whatsoever, an
interesting example of a Darwinian mechanism in the development of
Darwinian thought itself. A comparison with geology is instructive.
No geological theory makes it possible to specify precisely a
particular mountain's shape; but the underlying process of upthrust
and crumbling is well understood, and geologists can specify
something like a mountain's generic shape. This provides geological
theory with a firm connection to reality. A mountain arranging
itself in the shape of the letter "A" is not a physically possible
object; it is excluded by geological theory. The theory of
evolution, by contrast, is incapable of ruling anything out of court.
That job must be done by nature. But a theory that can confront any
contingency with unflagging success cannot be falsified. Its control
of the facts is an illusion." (Berlinski D., "The Deniable Darwin",
Commentary, June 1996, pp21-22)
>PM>Perhaps? But that requires some additional data supporting such
>assertion. Absence of such data makes such speculation meaningless
>since it can be invoked to explain any discrepancy.
>SJ>I'm glad you say this, because the above could just as easily
>be an *evolutionary* argument - indeed it probably is.
PM>Is it? But that does not solve your problem now does it? If you
>believe it to be a poor argument why use it?
I did not say that it was necessarily "a poor argument" that the
design of the prostate must have had a selective advantage for it to
have survived. It was *you* who are claiming that it is "a poor
argument". But in doing so you defeat your own evolutionary theory.
[...]
>PM>Darn, all I need is obedience and I my body will live? Has this
>been tested?
>SJ>...Adam was our representative. When he disobeyed God, he forfeited
>immortality, and therefore so did all his descendants. But...if you believe in
>Jesus Christ, the second Adam (Rom 5:14ff; 1Cor 15:22ff), you will be saved
>through His perfect "obedience".
PM>But has this been tested? Verified in some scientific manner?
>It is an interesting hypothesis though. Not much data to support it
>but interesting nevertheless.
It has been "tested" and "verified" in the lives of hundreds
of millions of people, including me. The final "test" is of course
in the future, after this life, which is what the prediction "you
will be saved" relates to.
>SJ>It makes sense from a Mediate Creation "point of view" as well.
>PM>True but it requires increased complexity in its explanation
>which makes it a far less viable candidate.
>SJ>First, I am pleased that you at least acknowledge that "from a
>Mediate Creation `point of view'" "the prostate does make sense".
>
>SJ>Second, that it "requires increased complexity in its
>explanation" is irrelevant. What matters is which model best fits
>*all* the facts.
PM>No it doesn't since the same model without the mediate designer
>fits as well and does not require an unprovable, unobservable
>supernatural force.
You have not demonstrated that "the same model without the mediate
designer fits as well". Mediate creation can answer *all* the
intractable questions that naturalistic evolution cannot.
As for "an unprovable, unobservable supernatural force", there is no
necessary requirement that a scientific model be provable, observable
or non-supernatural. Intelligent Design is an *inference* that best
fits all the available facts.
[...]
>PM>You are confused, evolution does not care about how creation
>happened it just explains the observations of evolution using a
>scientific theory.
>SJ>I am not "confused" at all. My point is that if "God could
>have used an `evolutionary' process" then it is no longer "evolution"
>but "creation".
PM>Is it? Creation is the initial process, evolution what happened
>since then. Quite different. After all evolution does not care
>about how it all started since it cannot even comment on this from a
>scientific point of view.
No, it is not "Quite different". I am talking about "the initial
process", namely God's original ex-nihilo creation of the universe,
as well as a series of "initial processes", as God progressively
makes new things out of existing things, namely first life (which
may have happened extra-terrestrially, and life's major groups.
This progressive creation in successive waves is in fact what
even Dennett admits that Genesis 1 depicts:
"The first chapter of Genesis describes the successive waves of
Creation and ends each with the refrain `and God saw that it was
good.'" (Dennett D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", 1995, p67)
[...]
>SJ>If there is a "deity" then "Darwinian evolution" loses all its
>metaphysical status as a God-substitute. It becomes just another
>set of secondary causes that the "deity" used in developing His
>creation.
PM>But Darwinism is not necessarily a god-substitute. It merely
>explains observations in a scientific fashion and does not deny or
>admit the existance of a deity.
That's fine. I don't necessarily have a problem with "Darwinian
evolution" (ie. microevolution) as "just another set of secondary
causes that the `deity' used in developing His creation". Its when
it is arbitrarily extrapolated to explain *everything*, against the
actual scientific evidence and with the motive to render"the deity"
unnecessary, that I have a problem.
>SJ>And then there is no need to force recalcitrant *origins* data
>(eg. origin of the cosmos, origin of life, origin of life's major
>groups), into the procrustean bed of "a purely naturalistic
>explanation".
PM>Isn't there? No curiousity on how the creator 'created'?
>Whatever the creator might look like in the end?
My very presence here over the last two years shows I have intense
"curiousity on how the creator 'created'". As for what "the creator
might look like in the end", I will eventually "see him as he is"
(1Jn 3:2).
[...]
>SJ>Have you ever looked at the route a plumbing system makes in a
>complex building that was developed in stages over many years by an
>intelligent designer? Looks like a urinary tract!
>PM>But we are not talking about just an intelligent designer but an
>all powerful designer who could have predicted such future
>complications.
>SJ>Yes. But there is no reason why "an intelligent designer" who
>is also "an all powerful designer" who therefore "predicted such
>future complications", nevertheless went ahead with "the route a
>plumbing system makes in a complex building that was developed in
>stages over many years".
PM>Sounds like a mediocre solution to me and not evidence of a
>supernatural creator.
You are flip-flopping between one extreme and the other. To you
either the human (ie. mammalian) "plumbing system" must be "perfect"
or else "mediocre". The Bible simply claims it is "good" (Gn 1:25,
31), and "wonderfully made" (Ps 139:14).
[...]
>SJ>Why not? "science" is about describing what happened, not
>prescribing up front what can, or cannot happen.
PM>Science does not make such claims since it cannot prove or
>disprove it. Using a supernatural force however makes for poor
>science exactly for this reason.
You use of "prove or disprove" sounds like 19th century "science".
These days "science" does not use words like "prove or disprove" as
philosopher of science Del Ratzsch points out:
"...since any theory has an unlimited number of empirical
consequences, it is impossible to test all of those consequences.
This means that in principle it is always possible that next week
next year or next century some new data will come to light that will
contradict the theory's predictions. The upshot is that no theory
can ever, even in principle, be proven conclusively to be true.
There is always the chance that at some point in the future it will
have to be abandoned. Thus the theoretical results of science are
always unavoidably tentative. So although a theory may be very well
confirmed, it never can be conclusively confirmed." (Ratzsch D.L.,
"The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is
Winning the Creation-Evolution Debat
[...]
>SJ>Red herring noted! If you want to argue the "selective
>advantage to anal sexual relationships" go right ahead.
PM>Sure, for instance to reduce off spring in bad years? No sexual
>frustrations though...
Why would "to reduce off spring" be a "selective advantage", when the
test of "selective advantage" is *more* "off spring"!
[...]
>SJ>Such a theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant
>meaning and equally compatible with almost any philosophy of nature."
>(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp154-155)
>PM>meaning is something we might search for but there need not be
>meaning to our existance in a theological sense.
I think Denton is using "meaning" is a more mundane way. But I am
only picking up Denton's main point that common "descent" does not
"tell us anything about how the descent or evolution might have
occurred, as to whether the process was gradual or sudden, or as to
whether the causal mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or
even creationist" and that therefore "Such a theory of descent
is...compatible with almost any philosophy of nature" (Denton M.,
"Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp154-155)
>SJ>Another red-herring? My point was simply that common ancestry
>is "compatible with almost any philosophy of nature", not exclusively
>Darwinian evolution. I take your failure to dispute that, and the
>attempt to change the subject, as tacit agreement.
PM>Is it? Any natural philosphy which can explain in a scientific
>manner evolution should be considered. A supernatural designer
>however is not scientific.
According to your arbitrary materialist-naturalist *philosophy*, "A
supernatural designer however is not scientific", whether it is true
or not:
"Some people have recognized that confining science to naturalism
would nearly guarantee that some truths were forever beyond science
should it turn but that supernatural events or processes did at times
intersect the empirical realm. And some, recognizing that and faced
with the dilemma of either giving up stipulating naturalism in science
or risking the possibility that science will be incapable of getting at
such truth, have chosen the latter. For instance, Niles Eldredge says,
"It could even be true-but it cannot be construed as science,"
(Eldredge N., "The Monkey Business", 1982, p134) while Douglas
Futuyma adds, "It isn't necessarily wrong. It just is not amenable to
scientific investigation." (Futuyma D., "Science on Trial", 1983,
p169). Michael Ruse agrees: "It is not necessarily wrong...but it is not
science " (Ruse M., "But is It Science?", 1988, p301). So if say, we
want to know about origins, and if the truth is supernatural, that truth
cannot be a part of our science, even if we had some additional access
to that truth. One characterization of science that has been popular
among scientists is that it is "a search for truth, no holds barred." On
the present view, though, if one had some rationally defensible
grounds for thinking that God had instantaneously created, say, basic
phyla full blown, one would evidently as a scientist by definition have
to pretend that one really did not know that particular truth. That
particular hold would be barred...But if truth is the object, then why
shouldn't anything that we have rational reason for accepting as truth
be allowed in principle to have some bearing on science?" (Ratzsch
D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the
Creation-Evolution Debate", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Ill.,
1996, p168)
>PM>The mystery deepens as it requires more and more assumptions to
>explain away the discrepancies. Occam's razor shreds such arguments
>to bits and pieces.
>SJ>Again you are mixing your arguments. Either: 1. you can claim
>"Occam's razor" at the outset, and rule out a Designer apriori, or 2.
>you can argue that there may be a Designer, and cite examples of
>imperfect design that present difficulties for some versions of that
>hypothesis. But it to argue 2 and then when your argument fails, to
>oscillate back to 1 is a mark of confusion or more likely dsperation!
>Please make up your mind which argument you wish to make and then
>let's take it one at a time.
PM>Both arguments can be used with equal viability. If you want to
>argue that poor design actual is evidence of design since the
>designer is not obliged to do a good job then this desperate argument
>fails Occam as well as science.
I said nothing about "poor design". I said it was not "perfect in an
ideal engineering sense".
PM>How could one disprove your argument since one could always
>claim that we do not understand the deity or his/her ways ?
It is frankly an inherent difficulty in understanding another mind
that we may not you always "understand...his/her ways". For
example, we have trouble understanding why other human beings
think and do some things:
"Another problem with the argument from imperfection is that it
critically depends on a psychoanalysis of the unidentified designer.
Yet the reasons that a designer would or would not do anything are
virtually impossible to know unless the designer tells you
specifically what those reasons are. One only has to go into a
modern art gallery to come across designed objects for which the
purposes are completely obscure (to me at least). Features that
strike us as odd in a design might have been placed there by the
designer for a reason-for artistic reasons, for variety, to show
off, for some as-yet-undetected practical purpose, or for some
unguessable reason or they might not. Odd they may be, but they may
still be designed by an intelligence." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black
Box, 1996, pp223-224)
We have an even greater trouble when they are of a different culture
and/or time. Exobiologists frankly admit that they may not
understand alien minds:
"n discussing why aliens on other planets might build artificial
structures that we could observe from earth, the physicist Freeman
Dyson wrote:
`I do not need to discuss questions of motivation, who would want to
do these things or why. Why does the human species explode hydrogen
bombs or send rockets to the moon? It is difficult to say exactly
why.' (Dyson J. F. "The Search for Extraterrestrial Technology", in
R E. Marshak, ed., "Perspectives in Modern Physics", Wiley: New
York, pp643-644, 1966).
When considering whether aliens would try to seed other planets with
life, Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel wrote:
`The psychology of extraterrestrial societies is no better understood
than terrestrial psychology. It is entirely possible that
extraterrestrial societies might infect other planets for quite
different reasons than those we have suggested.' (Crick F. & Orgel
L.E., "Directed Panspermia," Icarus, 19, 1973, p344)
(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p224)
How much more difficult then would it would be for human beings to
understand an infinite Mind? The Bible clearly teaches that God's
thoughts are not the same as our thoughts by virtue of being on a
higher plane: `For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are
your ways my ways," declares the LORD. `As the heavens are higher
than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts
than your thoughts.' " (Isa 55:8-9).
[...]
>PM>Nonsense, evolution does not give a darn about an intelligent or
>natural 'creator' of life. Darwinian evolution exists equally well
>in either scenario.
>SJ>When someone starts a sentence with "Nonsense" I suspect he is
>bluffing. It's like the old preacher's sermon notes: "Argument
>weak here. Shout!"
PM>Well, call my bluff if you believe it is.
I have been calling your "bluff" all along Pim! But as soon as I do
you scurry away and hide behind Occam's Razor! BTW "Occam" (ie.
William of Ockham) was a Christian theologian!
>SJ>The point is that if there is "an intelligent or natural
>'creator' of life" then there is no reason to rule Him out in
>"evolution", especially in those areas where "Darwinian evolution"
>has difficulties explaining the evidence. Mediate Creation then
>becomes the General Theory with "Darwinian evolution" merely a
>Special Theory within it.
PM>We are talking about evolution per se. If the designer used
>natural processes then why is the process suddenly creation rather
>than evolution? Especially if one cannot distinguish between a
>designer/natural process?
See Dawkin's quote above. The whole point of Darwinism is that it
claims it's `blind watchmaker' mechanism does not need a
"designer". Johnson comments on Dawkin's quote:
"Darwin aimed to do for biology what Lyell had done for geology:
explain great changes on uniformitarian and naturalistic principles,
meaning the gradual operation over long periods of time of familiar
natural forces that we can still see operating in the present. He
understood that the distinctive feature of his theory was its
uncompromising philosophical materialism, which made it truly
scientific in the sense that it did not invoke any mystical or
supernatural forces that are inaccessible to scientific
investigation. To achieve a fully materialistic theory Darwin had
to explain every complex characteristic or major transformation as
the cumulative product of a great many tiny steps. In his own
eloquent words:
`Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation
of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to
the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such
views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave,
so will natural selection, if it be a true principle, banish the
belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any
great and sudden modification in their structure.' (Darwin C.,
"Origin of Species", Penguin Library, 1982, p142).
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp32-33)
Therefore it is *either* "creation" *or* "evolution", not both. If
it is truly "evolution" then it cannot be "creation" and if it is
"creation" then it cannot be "evolution". The two terms, are
mutually exlusive. Once a "Creator" becomes a link in the chain of
cause and effect, then it is, by definition, "creation".
>PM>To require a creator when in fact naturalistic explanations
>suffice fails the occam razor as well as scientific foundation.
>SJ>The point is that "naturalistic explanations" do not "suffice"
>to fully explain:
>
>SJ>1. The origin of the cosmos 2. The origin of life 3. The origin
>of life's major groups 4. The origin of human consciousness
PM>Why would evolution have to explain the origin of the cosmos or
>life? It does not say anything about such issues.
Once again, please read what I said, rather than what you *think* I
said. I said "naturalistic explanations", not "evolution".
But in any event we have been over this before Pim. It is a verbal
sleight of hand on the word "evolution". Sure *biological*
"evolution" does not "have to explain the origin of the cosmos or
life", but the terms "cosmic *evolution" and "chemical *evolution*"
do purport to.
PM>Origin of life's major groups is addressed by evolution far
>better than by a creator 'she just did it'.
I said "explain" *not* "address"! And I don't necessarily claim
that God "just did it". I simply claim that although naturalistic
processes were used by God in originating and developing life,
purely naturalistic processes were indequate to fully accomplish
this, and therefore God intervened at strategic points to bring
about higher levels of specified complexity.
PM>Which creator was this? The christian one?
"The Christian" God is by definition the "Creator", as the
Apostles' Creed makes clear:
"I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth..."
But that does not necessarily mean that He was not also the Jewish
and Islamic "Creator", for example. The difference between Judaism
and Islam is in its doctrine of Salvation, not Creation.
PM>Btw creation fails to explain the origin of the deity.
On the contrary, "Christian" theology does "explain the origin of
the deity", in that He had no "origin" - he is eternal:
"While all other beings have their life in God, he does not derive his
life from any external source. He is never depicted as having been
brought into being. As noted earlier, John 5:26 says that he has life in
himself. The adjective eternal is applied to him frequently, implying
that there never was a time when he did not exist. Further, we are
told that "in the beginning," before anything else came to be, God
was already in existence (Gen. 1:1)." (Erickson M.J., "Christian
Theology", 1985, p271)
Christian theology holds that God is a necessary being, that is He
cannot not exist:
"A necessary existence is one that cannot not exist...a necessary
Being must be an uncaused being" (Geisler N.L., "Christian
Apologetics", Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1976, pp239,241)
It is therefore a logical error called a "category fallacy" to ask
to "explain the origin of the deity", ie. "who made God"?:
"Some may also object that if we hold that all events need causes,
then what caused God? But we can consistently hold that all events
need causes and that God does not need a cause because God is not an
event. Furthermore, the question "What or who made God?" is a
pointless category fallacy, like the question "What color is the
note C?" The question ''what made X?" can only be asked of Xs that
are by definition makeable- But God, if he exists at all, is a
necessary being, the uncreated Creator of all else. This definition
is what theists mean by "God," even if it turns out that no God
exists. Now, if that is what "God" means, that the question "What
made God?" turns out to be "What made an entity, God, who is by
definition unmakeable?" "(Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation
Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer", 1994,
Inter Varsity Press,Illinois, p22)
PM>Btw the usage of quotes of pro or anti evolutionists as proof is
>a faulty form of logic aka argument from authority.
I have not claimed them as "proof" - it is *you* who use the word
"prove", not me. I cite them as *evidence* to back up my claims.
PM>Quotes from Gould and others merely represent an opinion often
>in a larger framework. If you quote Gould you should not limit
>your quotes for instance to issues you agree with.
Pim, this is a *debate*, not a scholarly journal. *You* can cite the
opposite side of "Gould" if you like. To expect me to cite both
sides of the "issues" (apart from making my posts even longer than
they are) would end up being me debating with myself!
PM>That would be misrepresenting Gould's position on the whole
>issue.
No. I don't claim to *represent* "Gould's position on the whole
issue"! I am merely picking out aspects of Gould's thought that
agree with my own mediate creationist position. The fact is, as
Dennett points out, that Gould is really an anti-Darwinist:
"Gould's ultimate target is Darwin's dangerous idea itself; he is
opposed to the very idea that evolution is, in the end, just an
algorithmic process...America's evolutionist laureate has always been
uncomfortable with the fundamental core of Darwinism....Why should
such a "convinced Darwinist" as Gould keep getting himself in trouble
by contributing to the public misconception that Darwinism is
dead?...many of the most important contributions to evolutionary
theory have been made by thinkers who were fundamentally ill-at-ease
with Darwin's great insight, I could begin to take seriously the
hypothesis that Gould himself is one of these." (Dennett D.C.,
"Darwin's Dangerous Idea", 1995, pp266-267)
so in using "Gould" to oppose Darwinism I am actually correctly
"representing Gould's position on" *that* "issue", at least.
Regards
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------