| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
I haven't heard the argument before, but one problem that I see is the underlying use of the term "intelligent" (meaning "divine") designer. If a designer was perfect, then the lack of reduncy would be a measure of efficiency. We're falling back to the Platonic use of Types - the world around us is a pale and imperfect execution of the design. Imperfection would be seen more as a lapse of this world than a flaw in the Grand Design. In fundamentalist jargon, the Fall of Adam is the culprit, not the Designer. The advantage of making the claim may be exactly what I've said above. By pointing out that Nature isn't perfect (How many times have I told my students "If you want perfection, don't study Nature!") I feel this puts the onus on the ID crew to explicitely state why it isn't. Just playing devil's advocate here! Dr. Raymond F. Gildner Geology Department SUNY Cortland gildnerr@cortland.edu >>> plotnick@uic.edu 08/29/05 9:45 AM >>> ....a competent engineer would design systems (with) redundancies wherever possible
Partial index: