tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post116537307025595224..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Butterflies, science, and IDUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1166072034386060392006-12-13T22:53:00.000-06:002006-12-13T22:53:00.000-06:00What are the odds that this piece of chewed up gum...What are the odds that this piece of chewed up gum would come to be in this exact location--and who, 10,000 years ago, could have predicted such a thing as this gum on the ground behind this bench? How many other universes could have been where this gum wouldn't have ended up under this bench? What if the child who chewed this gum had had a lollipop that day instead? What if his great great great great grandparents hadn't decided to move here from Germany? What if his mother would have married someone else?<BR/><BR/>That wad of gum on the ground is clearly design.<BR/><BR/>I don't buy the "what are the odds?" argument--because you could apply it to any event in any environment.<BR/><BR/>Things are what they are. If they were different than what they are, the odds they would be _that_ way instead would be...what? Who can _possibly_ say?<BR/><BR/>Even if there were a way to calculate odds of an existent universe--_rare_ doesn't equal design. But the people on E-bay who bid on the "Virgin Mary" piece of toast think it does.<BR/><BR/>Referencing the quote in your post about the "explanation" offered for the design imperfections of the world: The idea of "sin" as an explanation for design flaws is insane. A bird with wings, that can't function to fly is a design flaw. Adam ate a piece of fruit--and that's why we have ostriches?<BR/><BR/>First of all, if sin is imperfection, then, according to the Bible, god created sin with full foresight. He knew he would create people. He knew people would "sin"--basically do what they chose to do instead of what he told them to do (how evil!) Then he killed them all for doing exactly what he knew they would do before he even created them. And according to Genesis, the reason for the flood was that God _regretted_ [or was "sorry"] he had made man. (Gen. 6:6)<BR/><BR/>Really? An all-knowing, all-powerful god "regretted" something he did? Did he _not_ see it coming?! He did something that upset himself, then killed a bunch of people to right his own mistake?!<BR/><BR/>That's very odd I think. In fact, it's completely senseless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1165424906348274182006-12-06T11:08:00.000-06:002006-12-06T11:08:00.000-06:00He explicitly rejects a traditional God as the age...<I>He explicitly rejects a traditional God as the agent of intelligent design, but doesn't say what the intelligence might be. He doesn't address the question of what sort of intelligence would spend so much time tinkering with species creation, or whether that intelligence had to be designed itself.</I><BR/><BR/>That sounds like "god of the gaps" all over again. It appears Hogan is parroting Dembski (not a surprise, since there's a flattering blurb by Dembski in the front of Hogan's book), in which case, <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/" REL="nofollow">the responses are extensive</A>.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1165409982139761522006-12-06T06:59:00.000-06:002006-12-06T06:59:00.000-06:00I've just been reading James Hogan's Kicking the S...I've just been reading James Hogan's <I>Kicking the Sacred Cow</I>, in which he offers a non-religious case for ID. He argues from statistics that the odds against enough favorable mutations to produce a new species are cosmically high, even on a geological time scale. He explicitly rejects a traditional God as the agent of intelligent design, but doesn't say what the intelligence might be. He doesn't address the question of what sort of intelligence would spend so much time tinkering with species creation, or whether that intelligence had to be designed itself. But his claim that standard evolutionary theory is statistically untenable deserves an answer.<BR/><BR/>I'm wondering if anyone's taken up his arguments. That would be much more fruitful than answering someone who's using the words "intelligent design" as a cover for "Genesis."Gary McGathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12880087933512343984noreply@blogger.com