>
> More on the "usefulness" of design.
>
> I cited Darwin as follows:
>
> PN>"He who believes that each being has been created as we now see it,
> PN>must occasionally have felt surprise when he has met with an animal
> PN>having habits and structure not at all in agreement. What can be plainer
> PN>than that the webbed feet of ducks and geese are formed for swimming?
> PN>yet there are upland geese with webbed feet which rarely or never go
> PN>near the water..." (_Origin of Species_ [1859, 185])
>
> Stephen Gooch asked:
>
> >I don't understand your argument. Darwin is writing about a rudimentary
> >feature, kinda like - why do us guys have nipples. How do you get from that to
> >ID is useful?
>
> Why are male nipples, or webbed feet on upland geese, surprising at all?
> How is it that they stand out against the rest of nature and seem to call
> for a special kind of explanation?
>
> Because a theory, ID (Paley's version, let's say), told us not to expect
> to see such things.
>
> That's a useful theory, or, more modestly, a theory that says something
> about the world. It rules out certain possibly observable states
> of affairs. When we then *observe* those states of affairs, we have
> a puzzle calling for explanation.
which doesn't show ID as wrong. It only showed that Paley's assumptions
regarding God were wrong.
Tom