Re: fear of the religious implications of design

From: billwald@juno.com
Date: Sun Sep 17 2000 - 23:23:13 EDT

  • Next message: billwald@juno.com: "Re: it's obvious where the ID movement wants to take it 2/2 (was ID vs. ?)"

    Two observations. If one was to draw a Venn diagram of the possibilities
    would not YEC be a sub-set of ID?

    Second,

    >Does not the search for extraterrestrial intelligence depend on the
    >assumption that intelligently generated radio signals can be
    distinguished
    >from naturally generated ones? Closer to home, can one determine by
    >studying Mount Rushmore that it was intelligently designed, or must one
    rely
    >solely on old news reports about its construction?

    We have examples of intelligently generated and naturally generated radio
    signals and have written computer programs which can analyze them. We
    don't have example of intelligently generated and naturally generated and
    computer programs to analyze them.

    On the other hand, can a culture which dips slugs in paint, lets them
    crawl across a canvass and calls the result "art" be trusted to indentify
    intelligent design? Or consider the typical Mark Toby painting . . . .

    billwald@juno.com
    ________________________________________________________________
    YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
    Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
    Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
    http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 17 2000 - 23:45:41 EDT