I am somewhat confused about the apparant/actual? contradictions between the
two statements made by DNAUnion.
On the one hand DNAUnion seems to defining natural selection to be NON-ID.
This is something that imho hardly follows from the premises of Dembski and
Behe. And I encourage him to show us how he reaches that conclusion. On the
other hand he says he will not address the claim made by Wesley that ID
cannot exclude natural selection as the intelligent designer. He refers to
Dembski to address this. I presume that Dembski has not addresses his
assertion about natural selection having to be NON-ID nor Wesley's assertion.
Does this mean that DNAUnion will retract his first assertion or will he show
the merit of his assertion? If he does then he has to show that it follows
logically from ID.
Wesley's argument applied to Dembski's argument but applies similarly to
other ID arguments that claim to infer design, not the designer.
Perhaps I am just confused.
[begin Quote DNAUnion]
That sounds like an oxymoron to me. If you have any kind of intelligence
and design involved in the selection process, then it is not NATURAL
selection, be definition. What am I missing?
[End quote]
[begin Quote DNAUnion]
I will not address Welsberry's claim that Demski's filter allows RM & NS to
act as an intelligent designer: I think Demski himself should address the
merit of that. But I will comment on another point you brought up.
[End quote]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 00:34:52 EDT