If there is a designer, it is a fairly incompetent one:
Yeah, just look at the Human body. Who would ever put a playground so near a
toxic waste site????
Kenneth Waller
;>)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Buhler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
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
