Bertvan@aol.com writes
in message <ee.90123d2.26c32c07@aol.com>:
>
> I urge Darwinists not to read the following article. It would surely be
> detremental to their mental health. I offer it for the enjoyment of any
> lurkers, skeptical of Darwinism, who might enjoy a particularly articulate
> explanationof what ID is about, and an expression of the goals of some of
> those considering ID.
>
> http://www.eppc.org/library/conversations/04-evolutioncurriculum.html
Saw this interesting exchange:
--------------------
Gregg Easterbrook:
...
The intelligent- design argument, at least the early version of
this, can be dismissed as weak science, which it is now.
PJ:
I vigorously disagree.
Gregg Easterbrook:
There are two versions, Phil. There is the version that you and
Michael Behe give, which is much more on point, closer to science
than that of William Dembski [author of Intelligent Design: The
Bridge Between Science and Theology]. Dembski is very broad. For
all we know, a thousand years from now people will look back and
say that Dembski was the great genius of our age. Maybe, but his
science is weak. [...]
--------------------
I wonder, though, if Easterbrook really thinks Johnson and Behe's
science is any better than Dembski's?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 19:41:55 EDT