quote:
ok, I think we're arguing in circles. Let me see if I can make my point without any subtlety: I see a number of arguments on this thread saying that life cannot be designed because the designer didn't do a good job. I'm pointing out that in an evolved world, or more generally, a world that arose by purely natural causes, there is no such thing as 'good' or 'perfect' or so on.
This is far from clear.
The most sensible reading is that the imperfections we see are consistent with evolution. But that would hardly help your case.
quote:
There is no such thing as right or wrong. You may *feel* like something is right or wrong, but only because certain electro-chemical reactions take place in your brain.
Either you are confusing moral judgements with practical judgements or you are asserting that given an evolutionary view it is necessary to deny that humans are thinking beings capable of design. Either argument would need a considerable degree of support.
quote:
So it is logically inconsistent to make any sort of value judgements about a non-existent designer.
Obviously if humans can think and design it is possible to think of biological systems as if they were designed and conclude that the design is poor. Therefore there is no logical inconsistency except in the case of people who deny their own ability to judge designs. here is no logical inconsistency in taking a position as true for the sake of argument - indeed the
reductio ad absurdam is a logically valid form of argument.
™ Version 4.2
