XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   "R.Dean"  skrev i meddelelsen news:bam_v.409144$Qh1.396349@fx32.fr7...   
      
   (snip)   
      
   > If one does not have an apriori and overriding adherence to naturalism.   
   > then design could be seen as indirect evidence of a designer. However,   
   > if design is disallowed up front and not allowed to show up for the game,   
   > then it's not even in play. Naturalism may NOT be the better explanation,   
   > nevertheless, it wins, but _only_ through default.   
      
   'The eye is sooo complicated, it just has to be the result of design, hence   
   a designer must have been involved. He also fine tuned the Universe!!!'   
   Sure...   
      
   Design is not "disallowed". Are you pulling a Ben Stein on us? Design is   
   simply not seen/found/present in nature. But 'naturalistic explanations'   
   are, and that's what makes them the only game in town. All attempts to show   
   the contrary have failed miserably, but you're welcome to have a go at it.   
      
      
   --   
   Malte Runz   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)