RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts

Pim van Meurs (
Sun, 4 Apr 1999 19:14:44 -0700

Moorad: ID is not a scientific theory, but it certainly is a conclusion from
observing the physical universe, especially, our own nature.

How did you come to that conclusion. At least not on a scientific basis I assume ?

Moorad: 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.

How have you come to this decision ?

Moorad: These are not personal biases but reflections on the creation.

There are surely your personal interpretations.

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

Who says that they are illusion ?


Moorad: Whatever talents you use to describe nature, rest assured that it
took much more than that to create it. If you used reasoning, cleverness, love, etc.,
then the actual thing took a lot more of all that than you did to create
your theory. This is quite self-evident to me. Is it to you? If no, why not?

I am not sure what the relevance is of your statement especially as far as
my comment goes that ID has little chance of succeeding (assuming that you
are correct). What might be "self evident" to you could merely be a
reflection of your personal bias.