On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:22:27 -0400, Philip Thrift <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>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.

You keep applying implied pejoratives to anything or anyone that
advocates any
alternative to scientific materialism, as if there was some personal
attack
involved in anyone positing ideas to the contrary.

Computers operate according to the laws of mathematics.   Is it
"super-natural"
that they were Intelligently Designed by human beings?   So what?

The major problem seems to be that many people seem to associate any
sort of
rational theological position with TV preachers like Falwell and/or
Psychic
Tarot Reader commercials.

Which is no different from associating Paleo Diets with Hollywood Cave
Men
hitting women over the head with clubs and saying "Ugh".


--
Cheers,

Ken
[log in to unmask]