Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Sun, 04 Apr 1999 16:26:07 -0400

ID is not a scientific theory, but it certainly is a conclusion from
observing the physical universe, especially, our own nature. Our reasoning
ability, our free will, our ability to know that we are, etc are not
physical and thus they lie outside the purview of science. These are not
personal biases but reflections on the creation. If self, free will, etc
are illusions, then our thinking ability is faulty and thus nothing that
comes from it can be believed.

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>; Pim van Meurs
<entheta@eskimo.com>; Evolution Listserve <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Sunday, April 04, 1999 4:31 PM
Subject: RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts

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 ?
>