On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:53:05 -0400, Todd Moody
<[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>Just don't pretend that Dawkins' conjectures are "scientific" but Behe's
>aren't.  I don't care to persuade anybody that Behe is correct.  But it is
>important that this be recognized as a real scientific dispute, and not a
>defense of science against something else.

It seems to me that Dawkins, etc. are attempting to
model how life originated, as stated in

    http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/cdeduve.html ,

"by natural processes -- a necessary assumption if we wish to
remain within the realm of science --".

What is the natural law of Intelligent Design ? Seems super-natural
to me.

Philip Thrift
http://www.paleofitness.com