One can always take a picture of an existing object. That object owes its
existence to preexisting matter and was made or fashioned by someone. In
most cases you can see someone fashion similar objects and so you logically
conclude that someone fashioned what you now see. The tricky question is
about nature at large, who fashioned nature? It is self-evident to me that
a Creator fashioned nature and keeps it going. I certainly cannot prove
that but such an assumption allows me to fit the totality of my experiences
and those of others better. Reality is out there not in our head. In science
objectivity means measured by non-human devices. The Crop Circles are
physical, as attested by the fact that you can take pictures of it, and are
clearly designed. The question that some people find it interesting is to
speculate on the creators of such circles. There is no argument against the
fact that something or someone fashioned them. I make no distinction
between such circles and leaves in a tree. All is designed and have a
creator or Creator. The creator fashions things from things created by the
Creator. I think all claims of proving the existence of God are nonsensical.
There are heuristic proofs that satisfy some and bewilder others. But there
is no proof. We must die first to know the Truth. On this side of death,
everything is faith. Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Lucy Masters <masters@cox-internet.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:30 PM
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: [Fwd: Griffin #2]]]
>Hi. I hate to be so dense, but I humbly submit that I just do not "get"
>your point. The two items you deem to be irrelevant in the "design
>inference" seem completely relevant to me. Cameras can take pictures of
>many things, but it is only humans who decide whether the picture is of
>a designed thing or not. As the ID people like to say, "If you see a
>design, you infer there must be a designer." I will agree to a point,
>but the designer is....ME. The design is all in my head.
>
>In science, we use the term "objective" to describe those things that
>the majority of people have declared to be X. But I submit it is not
>absolutely objective.
>
>Try this example just for fun. A few years ago, my husband and I saw an
>advertisement in the newspaper for a public meeting on Crop Circles. It
>was held in a very large city - the ballroom of a huge hotel. We go to
>stuff like that on occasion because we find it important to keep abreast
>of trends in mass belief systems (never know when it will come up in a
>session).
>
>Anyway, my husband is a notorious provocateur (you know how these
>blasted Ph.D. types are - tee hee). Here we were in a ballroom with
>about 500 serious crop circle fanatics all eagerly viewing the latest
>slide shows. Well, it turns out the basic message was similar to that
>of the ID movement: if you see a design, there must be a designer.
>And...since no one person could possibly run around the planet creating
>all these things, we can infer the designer to be alien.
>
>My husband didn't just raise his hand, he stood up and raised his hand.
>(I tried to melt into my folding chair). A guy with a microphone came
>over to take his question, and my husband inquired of the speaker why
>the crop circles couldn't be "naturally occurring." The speaker said
>the question was ridiculous. My husband persisted, declaring that crop
>circles are no more ornate or "designed" than snowflakes - and nobody
>thinks snowflakes are designed by aliens. The speaker said, "But
>snowflakes are little! And besides, we **know** how snowflakes are
>created!" My husband persisted, declaring that size has nothing
>whatever to do with whether or not something is naturally occurring and
>further that our ability to understand a thing or an event has nothing
>whatever to do with "who" or "what" created it.
>
>OK - so here's the point. A camera could take a picture of crop
>circles. We could declare that the words we will use universally to
>describe "things that look like that" are "crop" and "circle." The
>objectivity stops there. Whether or not the crop circle is any more of
>a design than the striations in a leaf is purely subjective. Whether or
>not a "designer" outside of nature is involved is also purely
>subjective. It's just a system of beliefs. I can find no objectivity
>beyond the photograph. And BTW, what if the camera guy slipped a bit
>and took a picture only of the forested area behind the crop. Would it
>be valid for someone to say, "Hey! I don't see any design here! This
>proves there is no God (aliens, whatever)." I just don't understand how
>there can be any relationship between proof of the existence of God and
>whether or not I, we, you, anybody can detect design.
>
>Lucy
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 25 2001 - 09:23:14 EDT