RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Sun, 4 Apr 1999 12:34:49 -0700

Moorad: Whatever talents you use to describe nature, rest assured that it took much
more than that to create it. If you used reasoning, cleverness, love, etc.,
then the actual thing took a lot more of all that than you did to create
your theory. This is quite self-evident to me. Is it to you? If no, why not?

I am not sure what the relevance is of your statement especially as far as my comment goes that ID has little chance of succeeding (assuming that you are correct). What might be "self evident" to you could merely be a reflection of your personal bias.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
To: Howard J. Van Till <110661.1365@compuserve.com>; 'Moorad Alexanian'
<alexanian@uncwil.edu>; ASA Listserve <asa@calvin.edu>; Evolution Listserve
<evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts

>
>Moorad: I think we can know something for what it is or for what it is not.
The
>term "intelligent design" means that the universe did not come into being
>without the aid of some preexisting being who has the ability to reason.
>Therefore, in truth there is no such thing as truly random, everything is
>designed. We are like fish in the water who are not aware of the existence
>of the water and want to prove it. An impossible task!
>
>I guess that's the end of ID then ?
>