Re: [asa] AIG argues (again) for design

>>> Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com> 10/03/06 10:24 AM >>>tells us
once again about the shenanigans of AIG and company. As follows:

The system that produces the cyanide is extremely
complex and would have had to evolve at the same time, otherwise none of
it would have worked.

This type of millipede had to be specially designed to do what it does,
and what it does do, it does do well.
 
Ted comments:
This is very interesting for what it does not say, more than for what it
does say. Did God "design" the millipede to kill other organisms--and even
to give pain to sentient beings such as the larger animals that won't eat
it?

If so, what about the old conundrum about no animal death and suffering
(they go hand in hand) prior to the fall of Adam? Did God "retool" this
creature after a certain fruit was consumed, so that it then could deliver
pain to larger animals and death to its fellow insects? If so, what does
this say about "design" and the fall and God's intentions? Or, perhaps (as
Edward Hitchcock believed), God already foreknew the fall and "pre-designed"
a world replete with animal death and suffering. The YECs would utterly
reject that view, but then what exactly do they do with the millipede?

Feel free, Burgy, to share this response with AIG.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 3 11:05:36 2006