Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University

Hahaha!It's strange, I didn't read where Percy said that those questions were OT. Still, convenient for you isn't it? Most especially since you're off to Donegal this very minute...This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 02:49 PM

Still here? ;-)To be honest I found your earlier defintion of "design markers" to be a bit fuzzy to say the least...But never mind about all that, I have one single question:-If ID was taught as science would it ever seek to discern the identity and methods of the "designer"?This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 03:10 PM

You say "at best", so you mean that we can never hope to fully understand every facet of the designer and his processes?This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 03:31 PM

Your reply brings to mind The Last Question, a famous short story by Isaac Asimov in which two scientists ask a computer to solve the problem of entropy. Over millions of years the computer evolves and becomes the means by which humans transfer their physical being into energy/mental consciousness.Finally, after billions of years have passed and the universe has darkened, the human/computer, having finally solved the problem, says,"Let there be light!"Have a nice evening!This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 04:00 PM

Two points:-1. What you outline here already exists as a branch of Anthroplogy and is perfectly valid when applied to observations of human behavior. This leads us to point two:-2. Why on earth would/should we assume that human design practice is anything like that of a creator we have never observed?-------------------- No it's a perfectly reasonable request that you have consistently ducked.You say, "This was designed by something".
I ask, "What?".Are you seriously arguing that such a basic question is unfounded? I'd say that not being allowed to ask "what?" constitutes the short-circuiting of a discussion!If, alternatively, you were to term my query as "cutting through the b*llshit", then you'd be correct.Like other ID apologists, you pretend to want open discussion, but then move quickly to lock it down (or divert it) when it attempts to query the nature of the creator.---------------------I have one further point about human design mirroring that of a creator...If you somehow did show that human design was related to that of the creator (difficult without ever showing a creator!) then one could propose that the growing human use of computer simulations/learning algorithms show that the "creator" might conceiveably have designed an evolutionary process that was left to run. This somewhat subverts the "hands-on" concept of ID, and tends towards the Evolutionary Theist's position!*************************MSG TO ADMIN: If too OT, perhaps you could invite Iano to start a thread about his "Human Design as a Marker for Creator Design" concept?*************************This message has been edited by RickJB, 05-02-2006 02:14 PM