There is one little problem with this analogy.
All the participants in the economy are intellegent.
Also, having some personal knowledge of communist economies, they are never
as simple as the original planner set up. They just evolve differently.
Black markets, bribery, mafia all thrive in such an economy.
This is the thing that leads me to ID. I just see too much purpose. Sure,
I can see simple changes, such as antibiotic resistance occuring all the
time, and within a design paradigm occuring without intervention.
But I find it difficult to believe that some complex things occured without
purpose, or some direction. I have no problem with things getting there
naturally, but I think there must be more than _natural_ selection at work.
Consider the wing. I still think there is far too much of a hump to
overcome for natural selection to be the only way it happened. There would
be two possibilities: a hopeful monster, or a clumsy intermediary. But
what if there was intellegent selection? What if that is the form that ID
takes?
Ami Chopine
> Consider the complexities of our economy; consider the various ways
> we spend money and the complex reasons for the choices we make,
> where the money goes next and why etc etc. It's an unfathomably elaborate
> thing. Then compare the economy a communist planner might set up,
> with simple specification of required production and directed consumption.
> Why is a designer required on grounds of complexity, when the natural
order
> can generate complexity ad infinitum?
>
> --
> Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 19 2000 - 09:28:33 EDT