><snip to cut to the chase>
SC
>So, then, let's accept the notion that such an extraordinary undesigned
>creature is theoretically possible within ID theory. Like I said, it's
>incredibly difficult to imagine a lifeform having its capabilities where
>it also does not show ANY indication of design at work. If it's
>theoretically possible for such a creature to act designed when it's only
>an illusion, then why is it not also possible for Earth organisms to look
>and act designed when they really aren't?
>
>This is my dilemma in accepting your claims. It seems like an total
>self-contradiction that ID allows a natural undesigned designer to be
>even a theoretical possibility. This is why I believe that ID must
>inevitably claim that a supernatural entity is the undesigned designer.
>Anything else betrays ID's goal of objectively identifying design in
>living organisms.
Chris
You make a good point. From an ID point of view, every form of intelligent
life would appear designed, even though from the point of view of
naturalistic evolutionary theory, it would only be "designed" by natural
culling or "editing" out "bad" design.
But, worse is the prospect of *God* as a designer, because *He* would,
being perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc., be even *more* clearly the
object of design from an ID point of view than ordinary life on Earth. How
could such a perfect being exist without having been created to *be*
perfect? Other than glazing over or blanking out, there really is no viable
alternative for ID theory, because the idea that such an amazing being just
*happens* to be the basic metaphysically self-existing "thing" is almost
too preposterous to discuss. Much better would be a demigod, or "minigod,"
who basically has only one power: The ability to analyze molecules and
manipulate them to produce new molecules. This power would only involve
only *tiny* amounts of energy, and yet would be sufficient to create and
then to manipulate life on Earth from its beginning until now.
But, then, we are back at the fact that *it* would need design, by ID
theory terms, and the infinite regress towards ever-more-powerful designers
is back in session.
I think the only way to stop this regress is to simply admit that what
appears as design to ID theorists may not actually *be* design. But, of
course, *that* won't be popular.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 03 2000 - 00:01:38 EDT