Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts

Moorad Alexanian (
Sun, 04 Apr 1999 14:47:41 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin O'Brien <>
To: Moorad Alexanian <>; Howard J. Van Till
<>; Evolution Listserve <>;
ASA Listserve <>
Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts

>>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.
>I would agree with that in principle. Now the question becomes, did this
>Being simply create the physical forces and the raw materials, then let
>shape themselves according to It's design (which would in fact allow for
>random elements to appear and influence the final outcome), or did It
>the physical forces and used them to shape the raw materials to It's design
>(in which case imperfections in the raw materials or the physical forces or
>both could still influence the final result), or did It use non-physical
>forces to stamp the raw materials to It's design (in which case the final
>result matches the original conceptualization perfectly, with no random or
>imperfect affects to alter the design)?

Dear Kevin,

One can only answer such questions in a speculative, at hoc fashion. We
search nature as creatures and as such it is hard to know about the
preexisting Being. Knowledge of this Being comes partially by studying His
creation or else through revealed truths or else the Being-became-flesh
fashion. There is no other way.

>>Therefore, in truth there is no such thing as truly random, everything is
>That depends upon how this Intelligent Being actually created It's
>conceptualization. Just as a gardener cannot control the way the flowers
>planted grow, the Being may not be able to control a creation designed to
>form itself. Just as a sculptor must work within the limitations and
>imperfections of his tools and material, the Being may have had to work
>within similar limitations as well. Just as a tool and dye manufacturer
>use special equipment to create exact and virtually perfect copies of any
>template, the Being could have used special forces to create a perfect copy
>of Its conceptualization.

Again we are speculating. For all I know our reality may be a mere thought
in the mind of the Creator.

>>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!
>Interesting metaphor, because there was a time when no one realized that
>existed either, yet we eventually discovered that air was not nothing, but
>combination of gases, two of which were needed for life (oxygen and carbon
>dioxide). So the task may not be as impossible as you believe.
>Kevin L. O'Brien

Many people claim that there is no spiritual dimension to man. I often
wonder what would it be like if we indeed became merely material--a blob of
matter. There certainly would not be thought or reasoning to pure matter.
Our nature is such that we can intuit much without truly understanding.