Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts

Moorad Alexanian (
Sun, 04 Apr 1999 16:34:11 -0400

If YEC are doing science, then they should withstand the normal criticism
that goes with doing science. However, I can imagine that none of their
papers would make it into most scientific journals. I am not evaluating
their work but indicating how close-minded is the scientific community to
new ideas.

The only reason that we know how a painter painted by observing his finished
work is that we are painters ourselves. Such is not the case with humans vis
a vis God and His creation. We truly will never know how God created. We can
speculate, but that is all we can do.

The question of origins is a very difficult one. We do not know in physics
why the fundamental constants have the values they do. How can we then solve
problems that are astronomically more difficult that these fundamental
question in physics?


-----Original Message-----
From: Pim van Meurs <>
To: Howard J. Van Till <>; 'Moorad Alexanian'
<>; ASA Listserve <>; Pim van Meurs
<>; Evolution Listserve <>; <>
Date: Sunday, April 04, 1999 4:30 PM
Subject: RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts

Moorad: It is true that now both Christians and atheists can do good
However, it might be that only those who believed in a Creator and wanted to
know His work would develop experimentation.

Not really. Looking at reality it almost appears to be the opposite. YEC'ers
for instance are desperate to ignore His Creation.

MooradL One can assume that the question of origins is a scientific question
and proceed with it. However, that assumption does not make it so if it


MooradL If God created out of nothing, how can science come up with that
fact from the purely scientific side?

What makes you say that we cannot understand how God might have created ?

Moorad: It is interesting, however, that the notion of creation out of
is creeping into physics. What makes you think that the question of origins
is truly a scientific question? Is that self-evident to you?

As far as science goes that is indeed the case. Do you have any evidence
that the question is NOT scientific ?