Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site trwatf.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!trwatf!root From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: the real case against Falwell et al Message-ID: <1028@trwatf.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 12:55:47 EDT Article-I.D.: trwatf.1028 Posted: Wed Jul 3 12:55:47 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 7-Jul-85 06:02:23 EDT References: <356@imsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA. Lines: 53 In article <356@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > 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. Exactly! Many of the "advanced" lifeforms are such total kludges, but then so what? The system works. If nature DID appear perfect in our eyes then we might well call this proof of creation. > Such a world would resemble a world created by the Federal > Government. Consider the 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. Not necessarily. It doesn't take an engineering degree to build optimal structures. It takes an engineering degree to UNDERSTAND optimal structures, and then only using a method provided by those degrees. Simply because the honeycomb is an optimal structure we cannot conclude that it was therefore designed. You must first show that such structures may be built ONLY through design. > Since they could obviously get by with much less, Darwins laws > would seem to imply that the bees who put the extra time and > effort into perfection would be the ones to perish, while other bees > ate and pro-created more or became better at warfare. The bees didn't put any effort or time into understanding or creating the honeycomb. If they did then that would give the bees intelligence and that would certainly be a non-creationist concept. > 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. Craftsmanship? If you wish to see such craftsmanship then you will see it.... in everything. Yet an explanation that explains EVERYTHING.... explains nothing. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Money for you from the Buddah"