I assume this is tongue in cheek . . . still, I've never understood these kinds of objections. For example, why should a machine have as few moving parts as possible? Who says thats the only way to do something?-------------We're just taking the logic of an intelligent designer to its natural conclusion, that there should be intelligence behind all the designs, not just some.I don't see any logical conclusions, that's the problem. I see subjective evaluations, I see "Any intelligent designer wouldn't do it that way", with no serious evaluations of alternative solutions . . . in short, I see personal prejudice, not logic.So which is it, god is all powerful and knowing and the designs are highly intelligent but we are too dumb to figure it out? That the intelligent agent that designed everything has/had its limits and, all things considered, did a pretty decent job? That even though we have minds capable of reason and logic, we shouldn't use it when it involves the god theory? Other?At this point I'm only arguing that whatever you perceive as faulty design does not argue "no design".If Microsoft designs an operating system with enough problems to make you long for the next one to be released, is that evidence that Windows ME was not designed? And for Kazim's benefit, just to be clear, I'm arguing design in a general sense, this has nothing to do with ID theory.Bryan
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra