From: posting-system@google.com Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:08 AM To: brian@holtz.org Subject: Re: Why the Intense Anger? Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed From: brian@holtz.org (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Why the Intense Anger? References: <3c3857cc.0@mercury.planet.net.au> <27430-3C3AE453-213@storefull-244.iap.bryant.webtv.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.236.1.8 Message-ID: <29c16047.0201160608.4b68211f@posting.google.com> "Gurnemanz" wrote > (b) The appearance of design is caused by > processes of organic and inorganic evolution. [..] > Concerning (b) it seems to me that evolutionary > processes are part of the pattern that a design theory > ought to explain., and one cannot explain a thing by appealing > to the thing which need explaining. As I noted in our discussion last year, your version of the Teleological Argument (the argument from design) reduces to the Cosmological Argument (the argument from first cause). So do you admit that, aside from the need for a first cause and perhaps some initial boundary conditions, all the other apparent design in the universe can be explained without an intelligent designer? If not, please identify the relevant apparent design. "Gurnemanz" wrote > The argument aims to establish that a designer is the > best explanation for the apparent design of the universe, > it does not attempt to explain from whence came the designer. > That is a separate argument. No, it's clearly not. Part of being the "best explanation" for something is being the most parsimonious explanation. If (an unexplained God creating the universe) is as consistent with the evidence as (an unexplained universe itself), then the "best explanation" omits any reference to God. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net