Subject: Re: JH: (not) The Design Argument Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 01:12:05 -0700 From: "Brian Holtz" To: "Brian Holtz" "Rick Gillespie" wrote : > >> What makes you [Netcom jimhumph] so > >> certain that these "highest level" laws (which, BTW, you still have > >> failed to describe) cannot describe themselves? > > > >1. We said they are not self-explaining; we're not talking about > >self-describing. > > I see no post where either of you said that directly. Jim wrote "science cannot explain the highest level scientific laws". Assuming scientific explanations must invoke scientific laws, it follows that: if Jim is wrong, then some (cycle of) highest level scientific laws must be (mutually) self-explaining. >> 2. I, at least, don't know of any proof that highest-level scientific >> laws *cannot* be self-explaining, but I strongly doubt they could be, > > Okay. That's a long way from stating with certainty that the "highest > level laws" cannot be described by science. After about 3 or 5 postings in our thread about "explaining" highest level laws, it was you who suddenly started talking about "describing" highest level laws. -- Brian.Holtz@sun.com Knowledge is dangerous. Take a risk: http://humanknowledge.net