Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>If Darwinism followed it's rule of prefixing "apparent" before
>"intelligence", as it does with "design", it would presumably
>have to admit that *human* "intelligence" is only "apparent"
The 'apparent' is all science is concerned with. But then, 'intelligence'
--unquantified--is no more a scientific notion than 'complexity' or
'design-with-no-apparent-designer'. If Stephen's analysis is valid,
at least I have the consolation that my stupidity is also only apparent.
Critics of 'Darwinism' seem so unconcerned about the ambiguity of the
term, I have to conclude that they think the ambiguity is something
they should perpetuate. Is Stephen talking about natural origins in
general, or evolution through natural selection, or gradualism, or
-- Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:39:47 EST