From: John W Burgeson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Sep 30 2003 - 11:20:42 EDT
>>I don't see that. If after all their good work, accounting for some
of complexity by a naturalistic mechanisms seems intractable to
then their logical conclusion would be that there must be some other
causative agent involved. >>
The obvious question is -- how much "good work" must be done before that
logical conclusion is justified.
You used the words " it will prove ID." But science does not "prove," it
can (to an extent) disprove. Even Ptolemy's models can never be
falsified, for one can always add one more epicycle to justify the latest
We tend to think that "modern science" has really gotten things well
figured out. Our great great grandchildren will know better. Of course,
they will make the same error about 22nd century science.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 11:28:06 EDT