I said:
>>You speak of "apparent design". I don't want to misrepresent your
position,
>>so is this a fair statement of it?
>>You now recognize something called "apparent design". You don't know where
>>this "apparent design" originated, but you can state with certainty it
wasn't
>>created by intelligence.
Pim:
>Yep. I also gave an example. We see something that appears to be designed,
>how do we know it truely was designed?
Hi Pim,
If it looked designed, I'd assume it was --until I had evidence it was the
result of random processes. True, rocks and mountains sometimes appear to
resemble something unrelated, and common sense tells us the resemblance was
accidental. However random processes can rarely be proved. I assume
everything which looked was designed. Perhaps your "common sense" tells you
anything not manufactured by humans is not designed. My "common sense" tells
me differently. Does your "common sense" have some sort of priority?
Are you defining design as describing only those artifacts which are
manufactured by humans? As for the "apparent design" which I see in nature,
like you, I have no idea how it originated. Unlike you, I can't state with
certainty it is not the result of any kind of intelligence. Again, are you
defining intelligence as some trait common only to humans. (And other
organisms to a lesser degree)? Personally, I would define intelligence as
the ability to create order or rational designs, make rational
choices--whatever it's source. I suggest humans posses the ability to some
degree, but I wouldn't suggest intelligence, an abstract quality, couldn't
exist in the absence of humans.
If we get our definitions straightened out, and we still have an area of
disagreement (I suspect we would), do you agree that legitimate differences
of opinion can exist between intellignt people?
Bertvan