>
> An Atheist might spend his time
> trying to create life in the laboratory.
>
Kevin:
>This has already been accomplished.
Bertvan:
Hi Kevin; I am aware of your belief that what has been created in the
laboratory is life. I'm not qualified to discuss that. Sorry. (Maybe again,
it is a matter of definition.) You do concede that some quite respectable
scientists disagree with you? Time will tell if you are vindicated.
Bertvan:
> A design theorist might look for
> evidence that life is a common and natural component of the "design" of
> the universe.
>
Kevin:
>Those "atheists" who have been able to create life in the lab have also
learned >that life is an inevitable consequence of the self-organization
capabilities built into >the physicochemical laws. In other words, life is
part of the "design" of the >universe. The question then becomes, did this
design arise naturally or was it the >result of intelligent action?
Bertvan:
To me, design is design--whether it arose "naturally" or was the result of
some kind of intelligence. (Frankly, I haven't figured out how consistent,
coherent information could NOT be the result of intelligence.)
Bertvan:
>> An atheist might see imperfections in nature. A design
>> theorist would look for the purpose behind each of those so-called
>> imperfection. (Death and disease, for instance.)
Kevin:
>Again, "atheists" accept that these "imperfections" do have purpose, because
>their research has demonstrated that. Concepts like death and disease are
>accepted as natural consequences of living systems, and are investigated as
such, >rather than as aberrations that must be explained away. In fact, it
is the >creationist position that death and disease are aberrations rather
than part of >natural "design".
Bertvan:
Darwinists do claim to be authorities on "the creationist position". I
believe most religious people believe death and disease "are a part of God's
mysterious plan". I consider them a part of nature's design. Do you
consider me a creationist?
Kevin L. O'Brien