No. The words have different meanings. This is why I used two different words rather than one word. To further clarify my intended communication:
Dr Laughlin's quote neither supports nor endorses ID. Gilder abuses Dr. Laughlin's quote to both support and endorse ID.
explicitly exempt RussP’s use of the quote from that general category
I said that "each and every" Google reference to the quote uses the quote to support ID. The "each and every" would not be correct unless I exempted to the two Google references created by RussP.
I have exempted RussP because he has stated that he is not using Dr. Laughlin's quote to support or endorse ID. While he did bring up the quote in a thread about ID, I have to take him at his word. He said he is mearly quoting Dr. Laughlin because he read it somewhere and liked it. He said he read it somewhere other than from Gilder thus further dissociating himself from the use of the quote to support or endorse ID. Finally, his use of the quote on his web page does, indeed, stand alone and aside from any discussion of ID.
RussP: If my conclusion is not correct If you really are using the quote to endorse or support ID, please feel free to correct me. If RussP does say I am mistaken then I will revise my mistake and remove the RussP exclusion from the "each and every" statement about the Google references.
Fascinating interview and article!
I was using the Laughlin quote to criticize the Neo-Darwinian ToE. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether such criticism is equivalent to “supporting ID.”
I actually think it is. But that doesn’t mean that I misused the quote in any way. Am I only allowed to criticize the ToE if I am not supporting ID?!