Paul Arveson (
Tue, 10 Dec 96 11:03:58 EST

>I invite anyone on list to try to connect ongoing discussion with "intelligent
>design" to this fiasco. If no connection can be made, I suggest that
>discussions about
>"intelligent design" such as those ongoing here are the 1996 version of
>"how many angels can dance on the head of pin."

>Joe Carson, P.E.


Piece of cake.

The argument is that, as Romans 1 claims, the universe is a creation, which is
therefore made by a Creator. This Creator is either personal or impersonal.
If impersonal, then there is no such thing as "intelligence" and all is
meaningless and due to "chance". If personal, then there is the possibility
for meaning and purpose. The Bible describes a personal Creator that is
consistent with this. The God of the Bible has a moral character, which
provides the basis for the matters of ethics that you are concerned about.

The question being debated is whether the argument from design really works:
is it logical and convincing? Is there evidence for designed things that would
require a personal Creator? Or do they point to another kind of creative force?
And if they point to another creative force, is THAT designed by the God of the
Bible or not?

If the answers are negative, there is no basis for your ethical concerns.

Paul Arveson, Research Physicist
Code 724, NSWC, Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
(301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-1914 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)