RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Mon, 5 Apr 1999 08:35:51 -0700

Moorad:I asked you if you were a working scientist and you did not answer. For
your information, there is scientific prejudice even in areas not as
contested as in the area of the question of origins. I have experienced that
and known of many cases in my 35 years of publishing in scientific journals.
I believe in a Creator and my papers get published. That proves that my
ideas and work are acceptable by the scientific community. In areas of
research where new ideas are proposed, then the going gets more difficult.
People oppose new ideas. It is the nature of the beast.

You are right, scientists are skeptical towards new ideas but that is a far cry from saying that they suppress new ideas.

Moorad: I say again: WE WILL NEVER KNOW HOW GOD CREATED. WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE, THAT IS ALL WE CAN DO.

How can you be so sure of that ?

Moorad: You say that we will figure out the question of origins. Let me quote you a
verse: "Professing to be wise, they became fools," Rom. 1:22.

I am sure that one can find a verse in the bible to support whatever one wants to believe. That however is not very convincing.

Moorad: Speaking of ignorance. Do you know the importance and problem involved in
determining the values of fundamental constants? Have you ever published a
paper on this problem? Do you know the names of famous physicists who have
worked on this problem without success?

ROTFL, and the relevance of this is ?

Moorad: If it is not obvious to you that the theory of how life came from nonliving
matter is astronomically more difficult than that of the values of the
fundamental constants, then you do not know what matter is nor what life is
nor what a fundamental constants is.

Your comparisson is meaningless unless you can show that the theory of life is astronomically more difficult than the fundamental constants. I would say quite the opposite.