To: VadeRetro
The big question is, how do we know an "error" really is an "error"? That this "error" does not in fact facilitate something else? Without being able to 100% audit the Creator's design goals, that is a mighty arrogant statement to make. Maybe it's there for some other reason. "Apparent anomaly" would be a better term than "error."
435 posted on
11/05/2003 11:59:38 PM PST by
HiTech RedNeck
("Across this great nation people pray -- do not put out her flame" -- Doug from Upland)
To: HiTech RedNeck
The big question is, how do we know an "error" really is an "error"? That this "error" does not in fact facilitate something else? Without being able to 100% audit the Creator's design goals, that is a mighty arrogant statement to make. Maybe it's there for some other reason. "Apparent anomaly" would be a better term than "error." So <ID_mode> "We can detect design in nature. However, we can only detect adequate design. We can't detect sloppy design, bad design, or no design at all. That would be imputing motives to the Designer." </ID_mode>
Sounds like we can't detect design in nature at all, so what's all this crap about ID?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson