Howard Van Till wrote:
> Your provision of a semi-humorous answer is a
> transparently evasive tactic. Why not have the
> courage to deal with the actual issue?
Humor is all that remains of this debate, Howard.
It's just too tedious to go into issues (e.g., "extra-
natural assembly") that you and I and Dembski
and dozens of others have debated for over a
decade now. As I recall, we first wrangled on
design in 1988, when I was a graduate student.
Your position hasn't changed a jot since then.
All that I have left are semi-humorous replies. Sorry.
> "Extra-natural Assembly" is no more cumbersome
> than "Intelligent Design." (However, as you said
> the last time I asked you this question, "'Intelligent
> Design' just sounds better.")
It does sound better. But here's a deal.
You find me an example of intelligent design that does
*not* involve the action of an agent, and I'll happily
use your preferred label. Until then: give it a rest.
The Discovery Institute
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 09 2001 - 10:28:08 EDT