Philip Thrift wrote:


>On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 14:58:57 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>ID is the claim that, given what we know
>now, it is reasonable to infer design.=A0=A0That's all.=A0=A0Period.

>It is more reasonable, given that chemical and
>physical models are sufficient to provide theories for the
>origin of life, then no new *special* principle outside of these
>needs to be added.

But the point is that they are *not* sufficient, despite the
protestations =
of Dawkins.  This is there is nothing even approaching a "received"
theory =
of origin of life based on chemical and physical models.

There is no new "special" principle involved in ID.  As I've pointed
out se=
veral times now, existing scienctific endeavors, such as archeology,
routin=
ely deal with the detection of intelligent design.  I have no problem
with =
anyone who disputes the evidence for ID, but please don't pretend that
the =
matter has somehow been *settled* by some alleged chemical/physical
model. =
 It hasn't been.  Nobody has yet come close to producing such a
theory.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]

PS In addition, you seriously misrepresented the situation regarding
the U.=
S. Supreme Court ruling.  It concerns Creation Science and *not* ID,
where =
the Court's understanding of Creation Science is the explicit attempt
to gi=
ve evidence for a Biblical account of origins.  This has nothing to do
with=
 ID.