From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Wed May 23 2007 - 09:33:03 EDT

Design invariably leads to ontological questions that have nothing whatsoever to do with science. Scientists are like children playing in sandboxes. You can play with sand and describe how it behaves and so forth. However, how the sand, the sandboxes, and you yourself came to be and who designed it all is not a scientific question. It is a consequence of a higher form of inference, viz., from the goings on in Nature and so what Nature truly is, that leads to design.



From: on behalf of David Clounch
Sent: Wed 5/23/2007 12:46 AM

I'd like to offer a quote from Paul Davies:

"The other main problem with Intelligent Design is that the identity of he designer need bear no relation at all to the God of traditional monotheism. The "designing agency" can be a committee of gods., for example. The designer can also be a natural being or beings, such as an evolved supermind or supercivilization existing in a previous universe, or in another region of our universe, which made our universe using supertechnology. the designer can also be some sort of supercomputer simulating this universe. So invoking a superintellect as the levitating super-turtle is fraught with problems."

Paul Davies, The Cosmic Jackpot, p 265.

Whatever we may think of the various options offered by Paul Davies, the most interesting part of his description (of where the design comes from) is the option for the designer to be "natural". Not only natural, but a part of our cosmos. Not a "supernatural" option as claimed by the crowd at Iowa State. One might be tempted to ask whether the signers at Iowa realize that their first task, in order to maintain credibility, is to show where Davies is wrong. I don't see where they deal with the issue.

-David Clounch

PS, I am sitting here right now with a sophomore from Iowa State. Believe me, he is affected by this nonsense in the name of science. As is my son, who is a junior in physics at University of Wisconsin. Both of them believe design is religion, not science, because ignorant people say so.

From: David Campbell < <> >
Date: Thu May 17 2007 - 11:20:39 EDT

Another problem is that a lot of Intelligent Design claims are
scientific, but wrong. (Even Paul Nelson has made this point.) Thus
it's not true to say it's necessarily not science. Some of ID is not
science, but not all of it.

Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to <>  with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 23 09:33:57 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 23 2007 - 09:33:59 EDT