Just a short followup comment on early post by Bill Dembski.
Walter Bradley, Professor
Texas A&M University
Received: from mail.airmail.net ([220.127.116.11])
by mengr.tamu.edu (GroupWise SMTP/MIME daemon 4.1 v3)
; Tue, 6 Apr 99 14:26:05 CDT
Received: from [18.104.22.168] from [22.214.171.124] by mail.airmail.net
(/\##/\ Smail126.96.36.199 #30.399) with smtp for <WBradley@mengr.tamu.edu> sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
id <mR/10Ubaj-0004UTR@mail.airmail.net>; Tue, 6 Apr 99 14:32:57 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:33:16 -0600
From: William A. Dembski <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Design as Concept, Sign, and Production
Just send your message below to firstname.lastname@example.org (it's as easy as posting to
phylogeny). That will put it on the ASA listserv. I'd do it for you, but
then my name will be listed with the post, and I think it's better that we
design theorists mix it up a bit with the ASA folks.
>There is another way to differentiate what ID has been saying and what Van
>Til has been saying about design. These are detailed in a book chapter
>which is posted at www.leaderu.com after which you click on "faculty
>offices" and then click on mine and choose "The Just So Universe". The
>argument in brief is that design is manifest in the mathematical form
>which nature takes (i.e., the differential equations), the values of the
>various universal constants and the initial conditions or boundary
>constraints. When engineers do design, they can only assign initial
>conditions or boundary constraints. However, the outcomes depend on all
>three. Van Til would put everything into the mathematical form which
>nature takes and the values for the universal constants. However, in a
>discussion which we had at the IV Conference in Chicago (Dec.1999), he
>allowed for the necessity for the initial conditions immediately after the
>big band (velocities in this case) had to be very precisely perscribed. I
>argued that similar informational input is needed for the origin of life,
>maybe the Cambrian explosion, etc.
>In his presentation in Chicago, VanTil argued that a universe which needs
>intervention is an inferior design to one that does not. However, in the
>Q.&A. session, I asked if an automobile which could self assemble and
>required no maintenance would be a superior design to one that does not?
>It seems to me that the requirement so self assembly and/or no maintenance
>for the automobile dramatically increases the required complexity and
>compromises the intended function (not to mention cost) along the way.
>How can this be a superior design?
>Bill, could you also post this to the ASA server as I am unsure how to do
>this. Please erase this note before doing so.
>Texas A&M University