Re: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells

From: Sarah Berel-Harrop (sec@hal-pc.org)
Date: Tue Aug 19 2003 - 08:27:51 EDT

  • Next message: Josh Bembenek: "Re: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
    To: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>
    Cc: <ASA@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:16 PM
    Subject: RE: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells

    > If an electron is not “intelligently designed” because it is produced by
    purely natural process, then surely humans are similarly not designed. I do
    not think an ID advocate would agree with you.

    Exactly. Because the "TE" disagrees with the ID as
    defined below (ie, that you can dust for God's
    fingerprints), then he rejects intelligent design in the
    broad sense, and is thus an atheist or accomodationist.

    see, "What every theologian should know..." (Dembski)
    http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_theologn.htm

    Or I guess a panentheist (see)!
    http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=
    view&id=1256

    Johnson does a similar thing, wrt to the word
    "creationist" in _Defeating Darwinism_

    Incidentally, swimming systems are not IC!

    http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

    http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#swimsys

    >
    >
    >
    > Moorad
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Howard J. Van Till [mailto:hvantill@chartermi.net]
    > Sent: Mon 8/18/2003 3:31 PM
    > To: Alexanian, Moorad
    > Cc: ASA@calvin.edu
    > Subject: Re: Fibbonacci and other mathematical patterns in shells
    >
    >
    > From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
    >
    > > Perhaps someone can tell me why isn°¶t, say, an electron intelligently
    > > designed? A brick is just as intelligently designed as a house!
    >
    > Yes, but only if you use the term "intelligently designed" in the
    ordinary manner of contemporary usage.
    >
    > The problem, as I have stated on numerous occasions, rests with ID
    advocates' peculiar use of the word couplet, "intelligently designed." In ID
    speak, to say that "X was intelligently designed" is to say, in effect, that
    "X was actualized (assembled, formed, fabricated...) in such a way as to
    require one or more occasions of non-natural, form-conferring intervention
    by an unidentified, unembodied, choice-making agent." If one uses THAT
    definition, then an electron would not be "intelligently designed" because
    it is produced by purely natural processes.
    >
    > Howard Van Till
    >
    >
    >

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 07/30/2003
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 19 2003 - 08:35:14 EDT