RE: Question for Paul Nelson and Bill Dembski re Tufts lecture

Pim van Meurs (
Sat, 10 Apr 1999 10:35:13 -0700

Paul Nelson: The exchange with the secondary school teacher took up
several minutes, nearly becoming a mini-debate, and the
reporter compresses remarks made minutes apart. I said
to the teacher that I thought he would be intelligent
enough to explain design reasoning to his students,

I was always wondering what the "intelligent" in ID stood for :_)

but he protested this (as he did nearly everything else
Dembski and I said, alas). Neither Bill nor I would ever
say "It is not scientific," which appears to be implied by
the sentence fragment and ellipsis, as both of us are
persuaded that design is scientific, and, more to the point,
true. [The fragment may refer to something else being
"not scientific," of course, but it's hard to tell from the
limited context provided by the report.]

I wish that one could however make a scientific case for ID. How for instance does one suggest to separate apparant design from ID ?