Re: [asa] Design Inference Mixed with Faith WAS Stupid/Dumb Science and Intelligent/Intelligence Science

From: David Campbell <>
Date: Mon Oct 22 2007 - 14:22:24 EDT

> >Dembski and Behe see design not in what these people call
> >design but rather they see design in science's inability to explain.
> I think they would be in good company then as this was exactly God's point
> with Job and Jesus' point with many of His miracles.

Job 28 emphasizes that the physical world is the wrong place to look
for information about God. To some extent, this is also the error of
Job's friends-trying to make God's action correspond to a scientific
formula: Job's trial=f(Job's sin).

Both the ID attempts to argue for design and the Dawkins et al
attempts to argue that the physical world shows evidence against
design are making untestable assumptions about the physical
probabilities plus theological assumptions about the way a designer
ought to act. Neither heed the reiterated conclusion of Job 28 (and
Ecclesiastes, in different wording)-"wisdom is not there."

Once we know God from Scriptures, we can recognize design in
everything. Conversely, a valid example of ID would do nothing to
tell us who the designer(s) were and thus would not even refute
atheism-there's always aliens.

Of course, multiverses equally depend on unknown probabilities. Even
an infinite sample has no guarentee of hitting a particular desired
outcome-you must first establish that the outcome is within the
sampled distribution.

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.
Received on Mon Oct 22 14:23:53 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 22 2007 - 14:23:54 EDT