Re: It is that comment right there that makes me sick
Also The Mysterious Stranger.
Those three were required reading in Sacred Studies when I was in school.
Was that the one that included the War Prayer? A classic.
"To question is the answer" is a catch-phrase from my church (Unitarian-Universalist). It has been joked that you can tell when a militant UU has been there by the burning question mark in your front yard. I've also seen a "Super-UU" emblem (picture, for a moment, the "Super-Jew" t-shirt worn by Seth Rogan early in Funny People, a blue shirt with a red Magan-David on the chest, yellow background, and a red "S" inside it), the Superman emblem but with a question mark replacing the "S". I do truly believe that everybody, regardless of what religion they are, must continually question what they believe. Not in order to question their religion, but rather in order to question their own personal misunderstanding of their religion so that they might be able to correct that misunderstanding. That includes questioning their preconceptions, such as listening to a sanitized war prayer without once actually contemplating exactly what kind of and degree of physical mayhem they are asking for.
It is only by questioning that we can learn and grow. And it takes more than a life-time.
The human body has a LOT of trade offs. I wouldn't say that the human body is "effecient". Instead, I would describe human anatomy as a good compromise.
What I have always found interesting is that Michael Behe would describe biological functions as Rube Goldberg mechanisms. He somehow thought that this indicated design, but it seems to me that he never really thought his analogy through to the end. Rube Goldberg mechanisms were funny because they were perfect examples of how NOT to design something, and yet that is how life is put together. It works, but the way in which it works is anything but "effecient".
This argument fails - A) Life is too complex to have arisen without aid. B) Complexity implies there is a designer.
I agree, however for a different reason.
A "Designer" would have to be complex.
This is where I disagree. A "designer" would not nesessarily have to be "complex" in the material, physical sense that we perceive as complex. Therefore, it would not automatically follow that the designer would need to be created. BTW, I know that is pure speculation, but the whole premise of the thread is speculation. The proof of the existance of a designer does not need to be established in order to suggest my point.
But I still agree that the arguement fails because the idea of "complexity requires design" is not applied consistantly (which is what I thought Dr. A's point was). But I actually applied the inconsistancy in the opposite direction asking the question, what would be simple enough that it would not require design. And by the criteria of "complexity requires design", I could not come up with anything. So when one "complex" thing requires design and another "complex" thing doesn't (?) its pretty much a pointless argument.
So we are in agreement that:
quote:This argument fails - A) Life is too complex to have arisen without aid. B) Complexity implies there is a designer.