>>They don't feel compelled struggle to dream up some rational that allows
>them
>>to conclude that design is an illusion.
>>
>>Bertvan
>>http://members.aol.com/bertvan
>
>I still don't know why agnostics would be attracted to ID. If there is an ID
>with some sort of overall plan, then the history of life on earth is the
>history of that plan in action. So far, the defining feature seems to be
>extinction, in various degrees of severity. Why is extinction by chance
>worse than extinction by design? I know you think if a species goes extinct
>that's a sign that they were a mistake, outside of the plan. If that's true,
>how do we know we're not "outside of the plan" and headed for eventual
>"error correction"?
>ralph
hmmm, over 90% (and I think it's *way* over 90%) of everthing that ever
lived is now extinct. Why does the designer design something and then wipe
it out? over and over and over again? Of course no one can know the mind of
such a powerful being, but I'm curious how IDers speculate about why a
designer would do such a thing?
Susan
----------
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced
by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew
why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct
species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and
natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the
laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 25 2000 - 15:11:11 EDT