Re: from Re: Intelligent Design ?

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Aug 20 2005 - 15:16:30 EDT

janice matchett wrote:

> At 01:29 PM 8/20/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
>> Which leads to an interesting question. If our minds were given to us
>> by God, how come that they are in many ways so fallible and flawed?
>
>
>
> ## I like my question better:
>
> If our minds were not flawed and fallible in many ways, wouldn't we be
> God?
>
> Janice :) ... who will respond to other things you wrote later --
> gotta run some errands now.
>
would we? How do we define God?

Of course we are getting to the crux of the matter here namely the
imperfection in life. If humans were somehow special, how come that
crocodiles are given a much better immune system?
Or as someone argued: perhaps the croc team did a better job than the
primate team?

If Rush's reference to intelligent design was meant to be a religious
statement, and I believe that much of ID is in fact more religious than
scientific, then we have no problems. Rush, in his personal views, sees
God in the design of the croc's immune system. I see God in many more
places, the smile of my daughters, the sunset over the hills, the cloudy
rainy season, lightning etc. Others may see God in more limited places
such as proposed by ID which has for all practical purposes delegated
God areas where there are gaps in our knowledge.

Dave Siemens stated his objections quite well, first of all one need to
carefully distinguish between philosophical and methodological
naturalism. Johnson and other IDCers have not done us a favor by
conflating the two and although Lamoureux rebutted most of Johnson's
errors in "Darwinism defeated?", we still see evidence of continued
conflation of these terms.
Received on Sat Aug 20 15:18:41 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 20 2005 - 15:18:43 EDT