ID taken to the end

One of the things I like to do with ideas (and their proponents) is to take them to their logical ends. Often I find the purists back away from their position when faced with the full extrapolation of the concept.Here's my train of thought on ID:It seems pretty clear to me that mutation does take place. We've all seen pictures of two headed turtles, etc. Is this the method by which the designer makes changes?If so, these mutations should not be random - that would be evolution. They must be deliberate.If that's the case, then it seems all birth defects should also fall under this designers control. Who are we to try and "correct" these deliberate choices?Doesn't ID dictate that a child with a liver disease was put here on purpose by the great designer? Same with a malfunctioning heart valve, etc?Are you sure that this is the theory you want to teach in churches let alone schools?This message has been edited by Nuggin, 08-09-2005 07:55 PM

By and large, birth defects are not caused by mutations. Two-headed turtles are not caused by genetic mutations that can be passed on to offspring. The line of argument might work if you can find something with a genetic connection.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Nuggin,Different PNT, same question. Any interest in following through on this idea? Or is this a dead issue?Thanks.

---

Sure, let me rephrase.If Intelligent Design dictates mutations / copy errors in the genetic code, then it's the Intelligent Designer deliberately creating the people who have transferable afflications? (ie Hemophilia)And, why would the great Designer do this? Clearly these people aren't replacing "normal" people. Seems like a waste of the great Designers time.

Thread copied to the ID taken to the end thread in the Intelligent Design forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.