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