On 2/17/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I look at the world and the universe, and it's complexity, elegance, it's > many systems, chemical, organic, etc., that are all intertwined and > dependent and come to the conclusion there must be a maker. There may be no > more hard proof than that, except that many scientists, the deeper they dig, > the more evidence they find for a designer.
Intelligent design is akin to saying "the pyramids were built by aliens--otherwise, how could they have been built"? If there is a designer, it is a fairly incompetent one: http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2005/11/the_other_id.php The article points to a guy who came up with "incompetent design". A lot of the characteristics of our bodies actually indicate either that we evolved from simpler animals or that our designer didn't really know much about design. The complexity of the universe and its systems are actually intuitively right to anyone who has had any exposure to complex systems and evolutionary theory. I once wrote a simple program that evolved tree-like structures. After only a few generations and little computational time (think a few hours on an old Pentium 700Mhz) I was getting incredible complexity. The "genomes" produced had strange pieces of code that made structures in a very non-trivial way. This isn't the basis of my acceptance of evolution as a good enough theory to explain some things about living things, but it really made for good illustration of what a complex system can do. Here are some pictures of that, in a very dated page: http://www.jbuhler.com/LSystems/index.html (and yes, before some creationist points it out, I am aware that this would be an example of microevolution--thanks) j > > I, personally have enjoyed this diversion in which we put forth our views, > knowing we won't convince others of them in a simple internet conversation, > if at all... > > For my part, I'm going to try and steer back towards photography, if not > Pentax... > > Tom C. > > > > > > > >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: <[email protected]> > >Subject: Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy > >Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:15:18 -0600 > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" > >Subject: Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy > > > > > >>What do you consider evidence? That's a key question. > >> > > > >Actual proof that something exists. > >In your gravity example, the fact that I am (more than I care for) solidly > >attached to the chair I am sitting in is proof that what we call gravity is > >real. > >Understanding the mechanics of it doesn't matter. > > > >My wife's eyes glaze over when I start explaining the finer points of > >carburetion, but this doesn't stop her from using her carburetted Toyota to > >drive downtown. > > > >In the God example, the evidence (for me) just isn't there. > >You may believe in a supreme being (actually, so do I, but not in the same > >way religious people do), a creator or whatever, but I have been shown no > >hard proof of this existence. > > > >William Robb > > > > > > > -- Juan Buhler Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com
