The Design Revolution by William Dembski

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooh~~~

I havent seen it yet yet I am not in creationist circles. My feeling has allways been that iD will possibly revolve creationism (this issue of what we see above the radar screen) but it must first rotate creation science which is what the over statments are about. Internal creationist churnings often vail real truths that only those participating know. I almost got on Janent Partials America to talk with Dembski about Jersey elections but couldnt get through that day I wanted to talk so I havent really been able to tell if this really only what Johnson predicted would happen to naturalism this century. I see evidence that Phil is certainly more correct now than I had given him credit for but the science has gotten even more difficult to work through now that I know more and not less but ICR has maintained the same position aka ID over all these years and is a way to gauge changes. The problem is that creationism just does not have the money that standardizing science did and does thus when it comes to any organization of physical knowledge between biology and physics via chemistry or not the INTERNAL CREATIONIST repute about rock dating still gets more attention (NOT) for secular reasons but for what I might call ecumenical differences. I have not understood how to place Gitt's ideas in all of but now that I have Georgi's ideas and his communication that thermodyanmic differences of opnions are as trustworthy (not very trustworthy) as are different opnionins of entropy and information therethru I have lost my own interest in the necessity of naming any kind of this creationist promotion (either way (within creationism)) that I have pretty much broken with anything but the ICR old time conservatism" in any supersenuous regard.

IF-- the gldayshev thermostat WAS-- first built (in part or by concept in whole unawares) by Faraday,Wheatstone, Danneli and Henry in the mid 1800s by putting a soft iron core into a coil of copper attached to a pile and one man holding the cold and the other the hot end while the other two aruged whether magnetism "evolved" from thermoelectricity (after the men registered a spark on breaking the circuit) AND both Dyson and Dawkins (were (by inference) wrong to attempt a notional seperation of metabolism and replication WHILE ATP heat creates enough gradient to permit protein expression of sequestered metals to CAUSE topobiological cell differences on mitosis unfolding the country and garden of Mendel that selection can stabilize THEN THERE IS NOT ANXIETY HERE BUT ONLY REALITY NO MATTER WHICH CELL is plurIvocal in the search for meaning we conduct. Faraday knew where the "keeper" was and so do we the "trap".Issues of tracing and invention and the future of economic cycling remain but the levels between supramoleucalar and deme might be fillable without needing necessarily to adjudicate the geographicalizations that might impose further restrictions on the man-made nature of/in the work ON THE BACKS OF PRIOR GENERATIONS OF STUDENTS.

"contingent" might get connoted without TACHION design IN REAL SPACE?And "specified" might be denoted with a data bank that ORTHGONALLY keeps records 'independent' in a sense I might discuss using Euginie Scott's notion of continum
EvC Forum: Evolution Vs. Creationism
to restrict the alleomorph symmetry relations of Wright(sorry for my own shorthand but I had thought the proposed topic where I was going to write this would have been opened)that is perhaps "bedeviling" use of the unreputed applied math Wright/Fisher "tension".I KNEW that Dembski MUST have meant *something* in New Jersey "specifically" but I have been unsure what that might have been and would, if, still be... Rather the problem is not one of "deception" in the D.Rather case @CBSDocumentation but of a perceptive one where ANY methodological natrualism is conceieved by any philosophical naturalist no matter the mind of EVERY latter. This is false but appeared to have occurred. It simply WAS not a matter of "leaps" of faith subjectively quantitized no matter the faith or not in ID. Again, there was reason that Gould referred to Freud in responding ON TV in "A glorious Accident" but to explain the inequalities in the alternative AT TRIAL is a gain of no simplicity, as would be required in the "specified" information able to make contigent what would have logically been at most a transItive asymmetrical relation of cause and effect. Still we/i don't seperate far enough (in print) to get out of ids; Bateson's simple-picture in front of the CU AGSCHOOL {or} his wish to the mathmematician Hardy, that... indeed there still is hardly all math in biology at all.Scientific realism is not this real under conditions that I KNOW but it might be able to recondition the failure to get beyond the psychological attiude that binds "leaps of faith" of any stripe or

quote:

---

urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear

---

GWB, President of the United States of America.Toda;Percy was correct this is a *huge* promise. New Jersey is not ^that^ big.