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"