From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Mon Aug 18 2003 - 20:47:46 EDT
The existence of many subatomic particles was predicted before discovery. Experiments were devised to find the particle after its existence had been predicted, in some cases, in others the natural course of events led to discovery by one scientist some time after another had made the prediction.
A friend of mine is a pure mathematician. He said he find physicists very annoying because they always found a use for neat mathematical trick the mathematicians could devise. His wish was to find math that existed for its own sake - and not for the sake of science. Certainly Einstein pulled in some pretty abstract concepts that seemed to be math at its most pure.
I think this does make a strong case for intelligent design. In a random universe, how can all mathematical discoveries lead to a physical reality? The existence of every subatomic particle conceived by the mind of man is less convincing to me, but still of merit.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 5:48 PM
To: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Cc: gmurphy@raex.com; hvantill@chartermi.net; sec@hal-pc.org;
asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells
Dave,
A physical theory predicting the existence of the electron would indeed by a very complex theory. The question why electrons? is indeed difficult and makes the electron "complex." Complicated is not the criterion for discarding something as not being designed. ID sets a criterion such than anything more complex than, say, X must be designed. I do not see it that way. Existence itself is a more profound criterion for something being designed. Of course, this is obvious for those of us that consider the existence of a Creator a necessary, logical conclusion of rational beings thinking on the question of origins.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Mon 8/18/2003 2:29 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: gmurphy@raex.com; hvantill@chartermi.net; sec@hal-pc.org; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells
Moorad,
I fear you've missed the point. First, an electron is natural, that is,
it turns up in nature all over the place. Further, so far as I can
determine, no one has discovered it to have a complex structure. Second,
a brick is not as complicated as a house. Indeed, an unskilled individual
can make bricks. A brick-making machine and gas-fired kiln are more
complicated and need to be designed by engineers. And a modern house
requires, as a minimum, the efforts of skilled workmen and, usually, an
architect. ID sets out a criterion for complexity, arbitrarily. Since you
have not accepted that dogmatic qualification, you cannot recognize the
distinction. Toe the line and you'll get it.
Dave
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:46:46 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:
> Perhaps someone can tell me why isn’t, say, an electron
> intelligently designed? A brick is just as intelligently designed
> as a house!
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 18 2003 - 20:50:03 EDT