Oops, I overlooked one uncommitted lurker. (Her post somehow managed to get
a timestamp that predated the time of my original appeal.) So that makes
two!
Richard Wein.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Wein <rwein@lineone.net>
To: Evolution Reflector <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: 22 October 2000 11:52
Subject: Re: To all uncommitted lurkers
>My thanks to the lurkers (committed or uncommitted) who responded to my
>appeal. It's nice to know that *someone* is following the discussions here.
>
>By my count, we had only two responses, and one of those described himself
>as a creationist, so should not be considered uncommitted. (By committed, I
>don't mean irrevocably wed to a position. I just mean that one has, for the
>time being, made up one's mind.)
>
>So it seems we only have evidence of *one* uncommitted lurker. Perhaps
>Stephen should in future refer to "uncommitted lurker" in the singular.
;-)
>
>(I'm joking, really. Given the number of subscribers to the Reflector, I
>expect there are a few more uncommitted lurkers out there, who prefer to
>remain anonymous. But it's impossible to know whether there are many, as
>there are no doubt also other lurkers are already committed, as well as
>subscribers who rarely read the posts.)
>
>Richard Wein (Tich)
>--------------------------------
>"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
>probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
> -- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
>claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 22 2000 - 07:07:43 EDT