design from Re: Definition of "Species"

From: bivalve (
Date: Wed Feb 20 2002 - 13:45:37 EST

  • Next message: Jan de Koning: "Re: Definition of "Species""

    I agree with Gordon Brown that intelligent design is not the best term for what ID advocates advocate. Quotation marks would have been advisable for my post. However, the vagueness and variation in the definition of intelligent design by ID advocates seems to make room for promoting a better understanding of the term. The definitions by ID advocates always give me the impression that they are trying to define it so as to include favorite phenomena, especially complex biomolecular systems, rather than trying to formulate a definition based on known examples. In particular, I see very little testing against false positives (Type I error).

    PS-thanks for prayers. I now have a postdoctoral position at the University of Alabama. Income is useful.

        Dr. David Campbell
        Old Seashells
        46860 Hilton Dr #1113
        Lexington Park MD 20653 USA

    That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa

    ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
    From: george murphy <>
    Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:20:38 -0500

    >gordon brown wrote:
    >> If God is sovereign, whatever happens is intelligently designed, no matter
    >> how directly or
    >> indirectly God is involved.
    > Yes. But if God limits divine action (i.e., does not make full use of
    >sovereignty) to what can be accomplished through natural processes, then
    >things may not be _optimally_ designed. & it may even be that - within this
    >constraint - it will not be possible to design things to accomplish some goal.
    >George L. Murphy
    >"The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 20 2002 - 13:29:12 EST