RE: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to Deny Distinguished Astronomer Tenure

Human reasoning reasons on what exists and so the issue of a Creator
automatically creeps in. Don't you think that that is more fundamental
than the notion of a Designer or that of multiverse? After all, who
created the Designer or the multiverse?

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Iain Strachan
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:16 AM
To: John Walley
Cc: _American Sci Affil
Subject: Re: [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to Deny
Distinguished Astronomer Tenure

On Dec 7, 2007 3:51 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

Pim,

You have to keep up. I am not going to spell it all out for you again.

Bottom line, neither ID nor forensic carpet fiber evidence is 100%
conclusive in the scientific sense because both us and the carpet fiber
could have been planted by aliens, but we deduce Wayne Williams guilt
from
one but deny GG his tenure for making the same rational deductions from
the
other.

The obvious implications of the anthropic principle is that all these
coincidences proves that there is a Designer. There is no getting around
that. That is not unscientific. It is just rational.

I'm afraid it doesn't "prove" there is a Designer. An alternative
explanation that cosmologists are appealing to is the Multiverse.
Billions of barren universes, and ours just happened to get the winning
lottery ticket. For reasons I've explained in other threads, I don't
find the appeal to Multiverse any more convincing, or indeed scientific
than the appeal to a Designer. The anthropic principle no more proves
the multiverse than it proves the designer.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 7 11:43:46 2007