From: David Clounch <>
Date: Thu May 24 2007 - 20:38:18 EDT

I had a least 4 separate trains of thought that came out of your posting.
And reached the conclusion that I dont understand what you are saying.

Let me try to restate it to see if I got it right:

"the goings on in Nature and so what Nature truly is"

via "a higher form of inference" have a "consequence" of "leads to design".

In other words, design is an inference? Is that correct?

Dembski wrote that ID isn't about how material came to be, but how it is
re-arranged. (which seems to be your other point).

That would seem to be one of the various types of ID. It isn't clear where
anything supernatural or religious even comes into play there. I just
really don't get it. What is the natural explanation for the words in the
hedge in the harbor at Victoria, BC? The plants spell out "Welcome to
Victoria". There's nothing in nature that explains how plants are arranged
to spell out a phrase in english that is context sensitive and specific to a
geographical location. Its not a natural phenomena. But neither is it

Here's something fun: Go to google earth and zoom in on South Bend Indiana.
Pan west along highway (10?) about ten miles. You will see the word
"Studebaker" spelled out by the forest. You can see this from orbit. Does
this have a natural explanation? Nope. Does it have a supernatural
explanation? Nope. There are other categories. But we (the country) are
ignoring this, and are instead arguing about a black and white fallacy.
Why? Francis Beckwith has written the reason is in order to exclude certain
domains of knowledge from the status of being rationally permissible (by
labeling them as supernatural or religious). It seems to me everybody has
a stake in making sure that sort of exclusion doesn't become a national

On 5/23/07, Alexanian, Moorad <> wrote:
> 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.
> Moorad
> ________________________________
> From: on behalf of David Clounch
> Sent: Wed 5/23/2007 12:46 AM
> To:
> 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 Thu May 24 20:38:36 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 24 2007 - 20:38:36 EDT