> For those that have never actually read about this stuff > CSICOP has a very > good critique of ID here:
> http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html > Obviously it's critical, but it covers much of the more > pragmatic material > (it leaves out the biblical literalists for example) and > offers a nice > historical overview. > Jim Davis It's a good writeup... It's unfortunate that people seem to be either well versed in the science and poorly educated in the philosophy or well versed in religion (not philosophy) and poorly versed in the science. It might be nice to a writeup of such a thing from someone well versed in both science and philosophy. This particular writeup is lacking in the philosophy department. Although I'm not going to dispute his conclusions, I will point out two things he missed: 1) he describes "intelligent natural design" as being the product of humans or possibly extraterrestrials, but overlooks the fact that there are other terrestrial organisms which engage in intelligent natural design. I've sceen film footage of a gorilla carefully removing each individual leaf from a long (and comparatively fragile) twig in order to use the twig as a tool to fetch ants or termites to eat. While it's certainly not the brooklyn bridge, I can't imagine how or why someone could describe this as not being intelligent or not being an instance of design (given his explanation of "design" in the article). 2) It is not necessary for an "omnipotent" and omnibenevolent deity to create perfect organisms. The assumption that such a deity would necessarily create perfect biological organisms requires a predicated belief that perfect organisms were in fact God's intent in our design (the end is the means). It is entirely possible that a metaphysical outcome (spiritual growth for example) requires the experience of an imperfect biological body, hence the imperfection would in fact be part of the "efficient cause" of our being (the blueprint for our spiritual growth). If you want to get nit-picky you could say that a truly "omnipotent" deity could simply instill spiritual growth in us without the need for us living, although if that's the case, then why would we exist at all, even as non-corporeal spirits? What purpose could/would we serve if there were no need for us to ever do anything? So I submit that there is perhaps an ... "experiential barrier" (for lack of a better term) which need not limit the physical omnipotence of a deity but which may place some absolute limits on circumstantial "potential" via certain paradoxes (i.e. can the omnipotent god create a rock so heavy the omnipotent god can't lift it?). The cartoon is sweet! :) s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.fusiontap.com http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/author/4806Dealey.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:167758 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
