In a message dated 10/5/2000 11:45:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
welsberr@inia.cls.org writes:
> 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.
>
>
That's what I tried to convey but your explanation is much clearer of course.
Thanks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 02:47:28 EDT