From: <>
Date: Mon Jun 04 2007 - 17:13:54 EDT

Pim wrote:

> That's an easy one. For instance let's take criminology and forensic
> sciences. Do they just state "science cannot explain this via
> processes of regularity and chance" thus designed? Of course not. And
> yet ID refuses to go into issues of motive, capabilities and
> opportunities, for obvious reasons of course. Real science, rather
> than using a pure eliminative approach, provides means, motives,
> opportunities, collects physical evidence, collects interviews,
> collects hearsay evidence etc.

I don't see much difference in what Dembski said in his
design inference book and what you claim for real science.
More likely is that God doesn't operate like human agencies.

The trivializing of ID may be politically expedient, but
frankly, it's rather lame to think that Dembski is just some
stupid guy with a really really moronically dumb idea. Probably
wrong in using the idea the way he has, but we all make mistakes.

by Grace we proceed,

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 4 17:14:41 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 17:14:41 EDT