Re: "Design up to Scratch?" (The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Roberts)

From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 14:43:17 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Armstrong: "Re: Perceiving God"

    Howard asks:

    >
    >I have a small question for Josh.
    >
    >George had asked: "Is the carbon-12 nucleus intelligently designed?"
    >
    >Josh answered: "Yes C12 is designed...."
    >
    >My question is, Why did you (Josh) change the terminology from
    >"intelligently designed" to just "designed"? Was that an intentional
    >choice? If so, what was the operative intention?

    No intentions involved. I don't believe that a God that uses natural laws
    to accomplish creation is thus unintelligently designing things. As we have
    seen recently, y'all were discussing a better word than even design, because
    that carries too many connotations that you would prefer to avoid. I am
    trying to avoid making the claim that C12 is a product of a process that we
    can positively attribute to a cause (unembodied or not) that would meet the
    criteria of the ID-packaged-sort.

    Josh

    _________________________________________________________________
    The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 14:43:49 EDT