I wonder if it is any more a science stopper than today's deterministic
My thought is that it does not carry any more metaphysical baggage than
the "science" of the New Atheists.
I'm not an ID proponent. I have some serious concerns about ID. But I
think this criticism is not realistic.
I think a better criticism is that it may be a mal-formed theory and
requires some revision.
I'm sorry, but a tu quoque doesn't disprove Rich's clear demonstration.
We are faced with two metaphysical claims, neither of which is conducive
to understanding the observable. One needs continually to note that
metaphysical claims, whether atheistic, deistic, pantheistic,
panentheistic, polytheistic or theistic, are not supported by any of the
Play it loud with a new car stereo! Click here!
To unsubscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 2 15:00:40 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 02 2008 - 15:00:40 EDT