Re: Design of Faces

Glenn Morton (
Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:17:58 -0500

At 11:06 AM 4/10/98 -0400, Jim Bell wrote:

>The opposite dynamic is at play in evolution. Originally, man looked
>designed and everyone believed it. Then, Darwin et al. proprosed this isn't
>the case at all, but rather we are byproducts of randomness plus selection.
>Now, however, upon closer inspection (e.g., Behe et al.) it looks once more
>as if intelligent design is the case after all!
>Now, just as it was once understandable for people to jump on the Darwinian
>bandwagon because of what was then known (or discoverable), we oughtnow to
>abandon Darwinism because of what we know now (and discover).

>Is this subject to change? Of course. That's science. But right now the
>science points to ID, and Glenn has brought to light the very process that
>leads us to conclude thus.

Jim, as usual in your lawyerly way, you miss the point entirely. If there
were an objective definition of design, there would be little flip-flopping
on this issue just as there is no flip-flopping on how much chemical energy
is stored in a gallon of gasoline. But as it is, there is no definition and
design becomes a matter of one's opinion. I firmly believe that God
designed this universe, but I don't see anyway to really prove it. And
appeals to complexity, as is shown by the example of the martian face,
reveals the feet of clay that the ID movement has. Behe defines design as
"The purposeful arrangement of parts." Fine, but how do I determine your
"purpose"???? Determination of purpose is a subjective, inferential activity.

Behe tries to avoid this problem with faces by saying that the martian face
only bore a "slight' resemblance to a human face.(Black Box p. 198)
Obviously others thought it showed a tremendous resemblance to the human
face. How do we determin who is correct? By what measurement do we measure
resemblance? Behe then discusses bacto-Elvis, a picture of Elvis formed by
bacteria. He argues that the detail must be superb to determine that picture
of Elvis formed by bacteria was really designed. But he doesn't give any
objective criteria by which we can determine this superbity. How do we
measure the complexity of the related parts of bacto-Elvis's face? He
leaves us with nothing but subjectivism to determine design.

he ends with "If the 'man in the moon' had a beard and ears and eyglasses
and eybrows we would conclude that it was designed." p. 199

Why do beards eyebrows etc indicate design? Can't they be formed on a rock
by chance also?


Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man


Foundation, Fall and Flood