Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill From: bill@utastro.UUCP Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Integrated Circuits. Part I. Message-ID: <934@utastro.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Dec-84 10:33:46 EST Article-I.D.: utastro.934 Posted: Tue Dec 18 10:33:46 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Dec-84 00:29:07 EST References: <577@uwmacc.UUCP> Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 27 >> As for the quote from my recent article, I was merely stating a fact. >> If Paul wants to present reasons why scientists and theologians should >> take the argument from design seriously, he is welcome to do so. >> That is another issue altogether. > >Fact, pshaw. This is an attempt to rule inadmissible, by fiat, >discussion of an issue that is far from settled. Currently it >is in disfavor in certain circles, but one can hardly imply that >it has been settled forever without drawing to oneself charges of >the kind of dogmatic certainty often levelled at, e.g., creationists. > >But Bill is right: it's an issue best discussed elsewhere. Sorry, I wasn't clear. It is a *fact* that most theologians and philosophers do not accept the argument from design, for what I consider to be good and valid reasons. I agree with Paul that this fact does not make the position true. But by the same token one is going to have to come up with some pretty weighty thinking of ones own to have a hope of convincing others (read: Me!) that the argument from design is valid. -- "When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)