A design without a purpose sounds like an oxymoron to me. Perhaps then
you would want to use a different descriptive word rather than design
for that which has no purpose.
> SJ: Secondly, the fact that "Naturalists can show how this apparent
> design *can* be the result of random change and natural selection"
> is not good enough. They must show that it *was* "the result of
> random change and natural selection". However, the fossil record
> does not support this fully naturalistic hypothesis.
>
> The first step is to show that it can be the result of random change and
> natural selection, the second step is proving that this is the case. The
> fossil record does support this fully naturalistic hypothesis quite well.
> But perhaps you can share with us why you believe the contrary ?
While I can't say that the fossil record clearly does not support the
naturalistic hypothesis, I do have some reservations about whether it
does to some extent. Probably my reservations has to with my lack of
knowledge in this area, but in spite of questioning various people who
know more about fossils than I do, nobody has yet provided me with a
satisfactory response to the question of statistical sampling - how
representative are the fossils that have been placed in phylogenetic
sequences?
> SJ: Thirdly, even if "Naturalists" were able to "show how this apparant
> design" *was* "the result of random change and natural selection" it
> would not rule out "design". The Bible affirms that God can "design"
> even through events that are "random" to man:
>
> The bible is not scientific in any sense so should not be used as evidence
> of the existance of such a supernatural force. It is very well possible
> that a designer acts through random acts which is the only viable
> hypothesis of intelligent design.
Again, this sounds like a contradiction to me - a designer acting in
random.
> That a designer created the cosmos
> through a big bang and let naturalistic forces take its turn. Sort of a
> giant experiment.
Sort of a deistic position.
> SJ: An Intelligent Designer may have designed all the laws and initial
> conditions of the universe in such a way that the design of living
> creatures is *real* not apparent:
>
> True but then again chance could have done this as well through
> naturalistic forces so this explanation would fail under the Occam razor.
Actually, chance cannot be used as a causal mechanism. I think the use
of chance is to explain something is a major violation of the Razor. How
different is it from using the "God did it" explanation?
-- ******************************Adrian TeoInstitute of Child DevelopmentUniversity of MinnesotaE-mail: AdrianTeo@mailhost.net******************************