barry_roth at YAHOO.COM
Mon Jan 17 10:20:57 CST 2005
Well, literally, Intelligent Design (ID) need not imply infallibility on the part of the designer. Otherwise, how to account for all those extinct species? (ID proponents DO try to account for them, don't they?) Perhaps the paradigm should actually be called Intelligent But Not Perfect Design (IBNPD) or Intelligent But Somewhat Absentminded Design (IBSAD).
Or maybe, philosophically, imperfect design is present in the world for a purpose rather like that of evil -- as some savant (was it Krishnamurti?) said, "to thicken the plot."
Richard Jensen <rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU> wrote:
It's relatively easy to come up with examples of poor design (e.g., what
"engineer" in his right mind would utilize the same pathway for air and food
intake, given the numerous opportunities for choking death that arise from
this). Unfortunately, such arguments are generally wasted - the true
believer doesn't question the reasoning of the designer; there was some
greater purpose at work here.
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! What will yours do?
More information about the Taxacom