DNAunion asks:
[...]
DU>That sounds like an oxymoron to me. If you have any kind of
DU>intelligence and design involved in the selection process,
DU>then it is not NATURAL selection, be definition. What am I
DU>missing?
[...]
DNAunion is precisely right in saying that NS is not an
intelligent designer. However, NS has exactly the same
characteristics that Dembski claimed uniquely identified
intelligent designers in TDI. My comment that by Dembski's
criteria, NS could be held to be an intelligent designer was
meant to convey to the reader the concept that Dembski's
argument was flawed, not that NS actually therefore *was* an
intelligent designer. The
actualization-exclusion-specification triad that Dembski
extols is not exclusive of natural selection.
I hope that clears things up.
Wesley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 02:45:28 EDT