Re: Behe: God May be Dead
- From: "news" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Oct 2005 15:54:56 GMT
"thissteve" <thissteve@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1129978211.320557.240930
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>> thissteve schreef:
>>
>> > Since the evidence of common descent is really just evidence that
the
>> > "designing" was done the same way with the same materials, it
follows
>> > it was done by the same person.
>>
>> If so, why does this designer keep on re-inventing wheels?
>>
>> Why is it that (for instance) the eye of an octopus and the eye of a
>> mammal have the same functionality, but different designs? Wy is it
>> that mammals have a blind spot and octopusses do not?
>>
>> Why didn't your "designer" simply reuse the (much better) architecture
>> of the octopus eye?
>
> I've wondered why we didn't get few extra eyes so we could see 360
> degrees. These choices reflect the personality of the designer and are
> thus not open to scientific investigation.
>
> (I'm not an ID proponent--just trying a little devil's advocacy.)
>
>
Why can't I shoot laser beams out of my eyes to annihalate my enemies?
--
As for the pastor, after four days of listening to science experts
dismantling the case for intelligent design, he was unimpressed.
"They're babblers," said the pastor, the Rev. Jim Grove, who leads a 40-
member independent Baptist church outside of Dover. "The more Ph.D.'s you
get, it seems like the further away from God you get." (NY Times, 10-2-
05)
.
- References:
- Re: Behe: God May be Dead
- From: thissteve
- Re: Behe: God May be Dead
- Prev by Date: Re: My Creed
- Next by Date: Re: Purpose a la Behe
- Previous by thread: Re: Behe: God May be Dead
- Next by thread: Re: Behe: God May be Dead
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|