Kristine
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
Heh.
CharlieM:
| Quote | Go and watch a bird building a nest where you will see a demonstration of something being designed. You are welcome to believe that this has come about through a series of unguided changes to the genomes of its ancestors. But this would be a matter of faith which is in no way demonstrated. What it does demonstrate is that nature is capable of producing designed objects in advance of the need for them. We humans are also capable of designing objects for future use and this process begins in the mind and is then realised physically.
I have no problem with seeing the merits of ID and I have no problem with believing that life evolves. What I do have a problem with is the unjustified assumption that evolution must be a blind, unguided process. |
Welp, we're back to the same old questions, aren't we? At what point does "design" *jazz hands!* enter the bird's genome - at the level of the cell or higher, or subcellular? - since I assume  that Charlie does not mean to call the nest building evolution? Because, um, wow, that nest looks nothing like its mother!  It might actually be a different species. 
And all of this raises again the question of sexual selection (esp by females), which IDists seem to never discuss. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that.) Is sexual selection design, or background naturalism like uncarved mountain faces? Anyone? Anyone? Godfather of ID (Philip Johnson)?
Cue Buddy Designy and the Crickets.
--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr
|
