randman
First you said.
randman writes:
To think in terms of good design posits one knows the intent of the Designer
Now you say
randman writes:
"good" refers to the design hypothesis being the best and only explanation.
Substituting the latter definition into the former statement makes no sense. Perhaps you can clarify?
Regardless, we are discussing this statement are we not?
The design of the schizochroal eye makes it unique among eyes; perhaps even to the point of being the best optical system known in the biological world. This design, in fact, seems to far exceed the needs of the trilobite. The origin of the design of the schizochroal eye is not understood by means of any known natural cause. Rather, it is best understood as being due to an intelligent (design-creating) cause, through a process involving remarkably high manipulative ability.
The word "good" is not present here. My question remains pertainent to this quote. Despite the fact that there are expalnations that involve natural causes the difficulty remains. When we purport the existence of a designer, whose existence is questionable and who's intent is murky beyond this, can the statement that it
is the result of an intelligent design be considered "understood"?
This message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2006-02-21 07:24 AM
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams
™ Version 4.2
