Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > dhw: [i]Thank you for another thought-provoking article. I agree with you that Darwin theory cannot answer the problem. We do not have any theory that can answer the problem. We only have speculative hypotheses. “Evolutionary experimentation” is an interesting phrase which would fit in equally with the concept of an experimenting God (as opposed to an always-in-charge God with a single purpose and the knowledge of how to achieve that purpose), or of cell communities finding different ways to enhance their chances of survival.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Your answer neatly avoids the issue of an obvious need for a designer.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Your comment neatly avoids my proposal that the article could be used to support the theory of an experimenting designer as opposed to a designer with a single purpose and the knowledge to achieve that purpose. It also neatly avoids the proposal that all the changes might be designed through the (possibly God-given) intelligence of the cell communities of which all organisms are composed.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Again you revert to a 'possible' designer, when the evidence is clear a designer is required. How can there be obvious design without an actual designer?[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: You have again neatly avoided my proposal that the article supports the concept of an experimenting designer (as opposed to one who has a single purpose in mind and knows exactly how to achieve it), and after all these years, you still haven’t grasped the concept of multiple designers (possibly with God-given intelligence) in the form of the cells/cell communities of which all organisms are composed.
> 
> My avoidance  comes from my knowledge of your knowledge of my thoughts. I'll bother to repeat: Since we do not know God intimately, we cannot know if He experiments with His designs. My own feeling is that He is too knowledgeable and purposeful for that. I have totally grasped your theory that there are multiple designers and I have totally rejected that approach. For me God is the sole designer, and cells in a multicellular organism do not have any such capacity to design a species for the future.