Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts

Kevin O'Brien (
Sun, 4 Apr 1999 16:12:57 -0600

>ID is not a scientific theory....

Catch me, I'm fainting! At last, an IDer who admits it.

>...but it certainly is a conclusion from
>observing the physical universe, especially, our own nature.

Since it is not a scientific theory then there is no evidence to support
such a "conclusion" and plenty of evidence to refute it. This is simply
your opinion; you are welcome to it, but the universe is under no obligation
to conform itself to your wishes.

>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.

You have no evidence to support these claims, and there is evidence that
contradicts them; read the scientific literature.

>These are not
>personal biases but reflections on the creation.

Without evidence they are still just opinions.

>If self, free will, etc
>are illusions, then our thinking ability is faulty and thus nothing that
>comes from it can be believed.

There is of course a third option, an option the prevailing evidence
supports: the self, free will and the ability to reason are consequences of
the physical brain and the physiochemical forces that it operates by.

Kevin L. O'Brien