Unfortunately, that argument has already been coined by William Dembski I believe, arguing that evolution did happen, but it was nudged along by a creator appropriately and over a long scale of time - In essence, another attempt to get ID scuttled in and provide evidence of compatability of science with religious dogma.
Well, its the nudging thats the issue of course, if there's a nudge it may as well have been just *bing!*'d into existence. But I reckon simply labelling evolution as the design process diffuses the argument anyway - well, the non-scripture, non-dogma argument. The dogma isn't compatible with science, but there's no reason that the philosphy can't be. And I think its a bit of a shame that more religious type folks don't see that, 'cause it'd make things a lot easier on everyone.
It still suggests a goal to me, that humans are the end-product rather than being a momentary snap-shot along the path of ongoing evolution. It's a sprawling, meandering process after all - With many mistakes as well as beneficial changes occurring. How much of a design can that allow?
It's a sprawling, meandering process after all - With many mistakes as well as beneficial changes occurring. How much of a design can that allow?
Evidently you've never worked on a large IT project ;)
My point is that evolution can be viewed as the manifestation of creation, not its antithesis. Not in that god's hand is crafting the world, nudging, changing, but that the changes and processes are said hand.
Comments 5
Reply
Reply
Reply
Evidently you've never worked on a large IT project ;)
My point is that evolution can be viewed as the manifestation of creation, not its antithesis. Not in that god's hand is crafting the world, nudging, changing, but that the changes and processes are said hand.
What suggests a goal?
Reply
Leave a comment