Reflectorites
Re: Behe and design inference: What does it mean?
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:51:05 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
RW>Stephen Jones even claims that ID does not necessarily entail a designer.
>But, if it doesn't entail a designer, what's the point of it? What *does* it
>entail?
[...]
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:53:32 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
Re: Reply to CCogan: Waste and computer evolution
RW>...
>Stephen Jones, our resident ID proponent, has even claimed that ID does not
>require a designer!
[...]
For the umpteenth time I do not claim that "ID does not *require* a
designer". I claim that ID does not need to specify who (or what) exactly
the designer(s) is.
I have given examples of archaeology and SETI to show that it is not
necessary to identify the designer to know that something was designed.
My recent posting of the article about the "Golan venus" is a case in point.
Archaeologists don't know (or need to know) which hominoid made the
marks that they claim is evidence of design. It is sufficient for them that it
*was* designed (i.e. not the result of law or chance) for them to infer
design.
I would appreciate it if Richard would internalise this rather simple point so
that we can move on in the limited time we have left on this List.
Steve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A
Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin: London, 1990,
reprint, p.138)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 10 2000 - 18:19:53 EDT