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