Heya Jim,
But a more serious presumption is that the mousetrap configuration is THE
> "final" and "desired" assemblage configuration. In fact, we know the
> particulars of neither the creative intent (is it indeed trapping mice?),
> nor the critical selection pressures in play (is this the only
> required/desired/preferred configuration?). Perhaps 20 parts are not
> necessary, and/or perhaps the mousetrap is a precursor configuration to yet
> another device that is more nearly reflective of the creative objective. The
> man-troubling reality is that evolutionary opportunities and factors are
> still alive and operative even though Creation's presumed crowning
> achievement is present and accounted for (though for some elusive reason,
> not situated at the center of Creation). This and other considerations has
> drawn me toward some sense of process theology.
>
The problem I see here is that ID proponents are primarily concerned (or so
they say) with justifying the inference of design. Questions of 'final' or
'desired' assemblage configuration are not absolutely necessary in that case
- one doesn't necessarily need to know a piece of art is finished in order
to infer that it's a designed product. (I suppose the MOMA would be of use
here.)
And I don't see the automatic 'man-troubling reality' as being all that
troubling. Besides, between technology and the rate of evolution, I think a
vastly safer bet is that whatever 'changes' may or may not come to humanity
in the long-term, human design (and, as ever, God's will) will be in the
driver's seat (Or at least take a vastly increased share of that control.)
We supposedly now have the first child born without the breast cancer gene -
there was no need to wait around for that to happen 'naturally'.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jan 11 05:00:40 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 05:00:40 EST