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)