RE: intelligent design & Intelligent Design

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 16:12:35 EST

The human mind cannot prove the existence of God. It can infer it just
in the same fashion that it infers laws and theories from experimental
data.

If human consciousness and intelligence is required to make sense of
creation, then creation is a consequence of a superior intelligence and
conscience mind. Only the philosophical assumption of materialism would
disagree with something as obvious as this.

Honest scientists know the limitations of science and its inability to
explain the whole of reality, which includes human consciousness.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dr. David Campbell
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:03 PM
To: ASA list
Subject: RE: intelligent design & Intelligent Design

> Can one similarly conclude from the experimental data and the fact
> that human intelligence is required to create the mathematical
> models to explain the data, that there is intelligence behind Nature?

Similar to what? We don't have the data to rigorously compare
statistically significant samples of non-intelligently designed
universes with intelligently designed universes and thereby develop
scientific criteria to distinguish them. Thus, one can't conclude
from experimental data that there is intelligence behind nature in a
way that is precisely similar to concluding that a solution contains
sodium ions.

On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to claim that positing an
intelligent designer (unconstrained as to the methods of creating)
behind all of it makes sense. Occam's razor is not valid against
this, contrary to claims of Dembski and atheists, because a more
encompassing explanation is considered simpler. E.g., pursuit of
unified force theories in physics. This will produce a new theory
that will still have the theories for individual forces as
components. Those theories, in turn, serve ultimately as summaries of
vast numbers of measurements. Yet each layer of theory constitutes
additional items. One could invoke Occam to suggest that we should
just tabulate the raw data and not make any theories at all. Science
has rejected that version of simplicity in favor of seeking broad
explanations.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections Building
Department of Biological Sciences
Biodiversity and Systematics
University of Alabama, Box 870345
Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0345  USA
Received on Tue Nov 22 16:13:43 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 16:13:43 EST