ID musings

[Richard Jensen]

Given that most proponents of ID seem to believe that the designer in question was (remains) omniscient, etc., it's hard for me to see how the phrase ID could be applied to the greatest portion of the natural world.  Perhaps MID (choose either minimally or marginally for the M) is a better descriptor.

Dick

Barry Roth wrote:

> Well, literally, Intelligent Design (ID) need not imply infallibility on the part of the designer.  Otherwise, how to account for all those extinct species?  (ID proponents DO try to account for them, don't they?)  Perhaps the paradigm should actually be called Intelligent But Not Perfect Design (IBNPD) or Intelligent But Somewhat Absentminded Design (IBSAD).
>
> Or maybe, philosophically, imperfect design is present in the world for a purpose rather like that of evil -- as some savant (was it Krishnamurti?) said, "to thicken the plot."
>
> Barry
>
> Richard Jensen <rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU> wrote:
> It's relatively easy to come up with examples of poor design (e.g., what
> "engineer" in his right mind would utilize the same pathway for air and food
> intake, given the numerous opportunities for choking death that arise from
> this). Unfortunately, such arguments are generally wasted - the true
> believer doesn't question the reasoning of the designer; there was some
> greater purpose at work here.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
>  The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?

--
Richard J. Jensen              | tel: 574-284-4674
Department of Biology      | fax: 574-284-4716
Saint Mary's College         | e-mail: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Notre Dame, IN 46556    | http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen