<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Some Thoughts on Design and Evolution:  Dembski&#8217;s Explanatory Filter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/some-thoughts-on-design-and-evolution-dembskis-explanatory-filter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/some-thoughts-on-design-and-evolution-dembskis-explanatory-filter/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:57:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: withallyourmind.net &#187; Thoughts on Design and Evolution III: A Defense of Methodological Naturalism?</title>
		<link>http://withallyourmind.net/archives/2007/some-thoughts-on-design-and-evolution-dembskis-explanatory-filter/#comment-50881</link>
		<dc:creator>withallyourmind.net &#187; Thoughts on Design and Evolution III: A Defense of Methodological Naturalism?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:18:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://withallyourmind.net/?p=585#comment-50881</guid>
		<description>[...] A long time ago I dedicated a couple posts to the examination (and critique) of Dembski&#8217;s explanatory filter for detecting design in nature. They are here and here. In this post I would like to discuss an argument for methodological naturalism that has affected how I think about design and evolution. Although I make no claim to do his paper justice, my thoughts in this and my previous posts have been influenced by Michael Murray&#8217;s &#8220;Natural Providence (or Design Trouble)&#8220;. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] A long time ago I dedicated a couple posts to the examination (and critique) of Dembski&#8217;s explanatory filter for detecting design in nature. They are here and here. In this post I would like to discuss an argument for methodological naturalism that has affected how I think about design and evolution. Although I make no claim to do his paper justice, my thoughts in this and my previous posts have been influenced by Michael Murray&#8217;s &#8220;Natural Providence (or Design Trouble)&#8220;. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
