Still Confused/Intelligent Design
masters@ballistic.com
Sat, 3 Apr 1999 11:03:15 -0600 (CST)
Dembski wrote that intelligent design can be "intuitively well understood."
But doesn't the phrase "intuitively well understood" point to a consensual
validity of a subjective interpretation? Where is the objectivity if
statistics is a construct of the human mind (and I believe it is). It seems
that a thing or an event has pattern, order, or design if that's the way one
sees it, and it does not have pattern, order, or design if that is not the
way one sees it. At the risk of being profoundly simple minded, I believe
the greater debate revolves around maintaining and developing faith in the
absence of objectivity. Or, stated another way, perhaps the quest for
objectivity negates the need for faith?