I'm a bit uncertain as to what you mean when you refer to intellegent
design. Are you saying that if it was designed we should know what would
happen before it does? Like we should be able to say that one day we will
find a copyright stamp on the earth somewhere because everybody knows that
it's not very intellegent to let people steal your ideas. Sorry for being
silly, can you explain this "predicting power" please.
Thanks
Donald
At 08:56 AM 14/08/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Stephen: But so blinded is Gould by his materialistic-naturalistic
metaphysical
>assumptions that it escapes his notice that built-in capacity for the
future is
>the mark of far-sighted *intelligent design* not a blind watchmaker. >>
>
>Is it ? The arguments are both quite convincing, only with the added
problem of requiring an intelligent design. Absent any evidence one might
wonder why one has to invoke such 'intelligent design' ? After all, after
the fact one can always invoke such argument with little predicting power.
>
>As a scientific explanation, intelligent design loses on many fronts. But
it does make for an imaginative explanation though.
>
---------------------
Donald Howes
Acting Research Systems Co-ordinator
Research Services
University of New England
Australia
---------------------