From: Wesley R. Elsberry <welsberr@inia.cls.org>
>
>A small correction to Richard's recounting of two conclusions:
>
>"Either the relevant complexity measure is the conditional probability
>given the chance hypothesis regardless of causation, or the entire DI
>becomes just another case of special pleading in an apologetic."
>
><http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/ae/dembski_wa/resp_wre_19991229.txt>
>
>We've both come to Richard's conclusion. I just cover the other
>cases as well.
I acknowledge the correction, Wesley, and will be careful to avoid this
error in future. It seems the difference between us is only one of emphasis.
We both consider and reject each of the interpretations; we only differ over
which interpretation is more likely to be the one intended by Dembski.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 29 2000 - 08:48:19 EDT