Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: the real case against Falwell et al Message-ID: <540@psivax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 19:07:48 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.540 Posted: Fri Jul 5 19:07:48 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 05:49:25 EDT References: <356@imsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 66 Summary: In article <356@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > Evolution seems to me to be a fact of life and is >supported by all geological evidence. However, >evolution as we observe it now, runs only downhill in >accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. In >reality, chance mutations, which Darwinists like to >regard as the driving force behind evolution, take only >such forms as Down's syndrome and Tay-Sachs disease. This is an incorrect statement about evolutionary theorists. We like to regard *natural selection* as the driving force of evolution, not mutation. Mutation is best viewed as a source of raw material on which N.S. can act. > I believe that a world forged entirely by chance >mutations and Darwinian laws would be a world of >unbelievable shabbiness, i.e. that the law of survival >of the fittest would give you acceptable functionality, >but never perfection. Such a world would resemble a >world created by the Federal Government. Consider the Actually, this *is* essentially what we see. With a very few exceptions(mostly simple in nature), living things do not achieve perfection, only competence. >honeycomb, which represents a perfect solution to a >multi-dimentional optimization problem. The hexagonal >shape gives maximum strength for minimal use of >material with no left-over pockets, and the ends >dove-tail perfectly; nothing is wasted. Bees would >need engineering degrees with math through advanced >calculus to build such a structure by design. Or they could use trial and error, the solution si in fact quite simple, and may be easily arrived at in this way. Lesser solutions may be usable(in fact some bee relatives use such lesser solutions), but in competition with the better solution under conitions of high poulation density, as in a bee hive, the small advantage of optimal efficiency would be prefered once it became available. > Indeed, everywhere you look on this planet, you >see craftsmanship; it is in no wise "scientific" to >ignore something so obvious. And yet, believing that >this planet was "created" doesn't necessitate believing >in a being who is omnipotent; we seem omnipotent to >ants, that is relative. > This is in fact a return to the argument from design. In order to be valid you demonstrate several more points. First you must provide an objective definition of design, not just the gut feeling, "this looks sophisticated therefore it must be designed". Secondly you must show how this proposed definition of design *intrinsically* *implies* a designer. And pleas remember, avoid circularity and begging the question, simply saying "this fits my definition of design and the dictionary defines design in such a way as to imply a designer" is *not* sufficient since you are not using the dictionary definition. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen