> I guess my biggest response to this was "Huh?" I admit that Midgley's
>quote wasn't specific...I hope someone can give me a ref. for more info on the
>evolution of mammalian eyes...(info on the deevolution of them would be even
>better)...I don't see what fish getting their faces bit off has to do with
>anything, or what having a PhD or not has to do with anything (I;m still
>working on the B.S.). On Denton, I see this kind of information as being a
>first, tiny step towards doing what Darwin couldnt: reconstructing the history
>of the eye to see how it evolved (or if it evolved). I know there are more
>with-it ID types out there. I thought up what I thought was a good response
>already: that the orignal, general plan of the eye was IDed, and micro (or
>maybe something just a bit more than micro) took over after that. The Midgley
>quote doesn't address that deeper question.
I got a big "Huh" out of Randy's post also. I had written a
response to your post a day ago but trashed it because I didn't think it
really added to the discussion, but now I wish I had sent it out. In a
nutshell I don't know that much about the eye but the day you wrote your
question I was approached by someone in the Church I go to who showed me
what he was going to present at a university Bible study. It was very
interesting because he had a quote by Kenneth G. Miller who I have not been
able to get more info on (I've spent a good amount of time on the web and
in the library today and yesterday looking for any of his writings).
Anyway, Miller's argument apparently is that the eye is not designed very
well if we consider it from "intelligent design" and he goes into the
position of blood vessels, nerves etc. to support his claim. This argument
really struck me because it seems to be very different than the argument
from someone like Behe (beyond the obvious that Miller is attempting to
debunk any religious aspects of science and Behe isn't). The question then
posed in the outline given to me for this Bible study was; why are various
features, if not most, the "best" that they could be?
Your response above is not necessarily the one that I think he was going to
give (I know he is a 6-day literalist and sympathetic toward scientific
creationsist). I believe his point was going to be that when God created
"good" things it is from his perspective and not ours and we can't
necessarily judge what is good in his sight. This study leader does accept
micro-evolution but wouldn't go with the idea that everything in the Garden
before the flood was perfect in the sense that all structures were somehow
without any inefficiency (although no death occurred!). Well I can think of
many question I would ask him but haven't had a chance to yet.
Personally there are aspects of this sentiment that I agree with.
I think we need to think long and hard before saying that God HAD to make
things a particular way that fit with OUR conception of being "good." What
this means to ID, I believe is that all argumentation of ID or not must
begin with some assumption of what something would look like if it were of
ID. This in itself is somewhat circular and I think a difficulty. I know
this was a topic of quite some discussion about a month ago and I found it
all very intersting.
I found in all the discussion of whether ID was
testible/provable/falsifiable etc.. was that the convictions of the person
arguing for any point of view were very much determined by their sense of
what is "good." I saw very little argumention derived from examnation of
the scripture to determine what "good" means to God but I saw a lot of
desriptions of what we should expect if something were intelligenetly
designed. In this way I see ID as something of a roving target because the
assumptions of what ID would look like are often based on mans definitions.
In many ways many of the same arguments put forth by some about
evolutionary theory as being to flexible and thus not falsibiable seem to
apply to ID.
I would just say in conclusion that I do not believe in chance and
randomness. I believe that everthing is intelligently designed and that
every quark in every corner of the universe is there by design and for his
glory. The world God has fashioned is good in his eyes and can not be
improved upon except by his guidence. However God has chosen to create all
things, they are under his direction and power.
Joel
Postdoctoral Fellow
Department Plant Biology
Southern Illinois University
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
G ,-~~-.___. Joel and Dawn Duff G
O / | ' \ 1457 W. Lake Rd. #4 0
( ) 0 Murphysboro, IL 62966
V \_/-, ,----' e-mail: duff@siu.edu V
O ==== // or virkotto@intrnet.net 0
L / \-'~; /~~~(O) phone: (618) 684-3726 L
S / __/~| / | * * * * * * S
=( _____| (_________| \\\/// \\\///
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_