Darren New wrote:
> This is what I'm saying:
> 
> Assuming that "made man in God's image" is interpreted in a 
> straightforward way. If so, God didn't design the eye.  God didn't 
> design himself - he was always here. And he copied his eye for use with 
> humans. Where did the design of the eye come from? It has always been 
> here. No need for a designer at all.  :-)
> 
> Clearly God is an irreducibly complex system that wasn't designed. Any 
> irreducible thing patterned on God thus came into existence without 
> being designed, just like parents don't "design" their children's eyes.
> 
> Was just a silly passing thought.

Ahh, I did not understand that was the point you were making.  Of course 
even so then there's still cephalopod eyes and such that would need 
actual design.  Unless of course you hold that God would just "know" how 
such eyes were made and wouldn't need to actually "design" them, which 
lease you right into the rather odd (and sort of useless imho) question 
as to what degree an all-knowing entity could perform something we would 
call "design".

On a related issue, I wonder just how common that particular 
interpretation of "made in God's image" is.  It seems pretty difficult 
to defend against even simple counter-arguments.  Not that that means 
it's necessarily unpopular though.


>> I don't think many proponents of irreducible complexity would have a 
>> problem with irreducibly complex eternal things.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "external" there, especially w.r.t. God. 
> Plus, "we know it was designed" doesn't imply "it must have been God" 
> either.

By "eternal things" I meant God, or an eternal universe or multiverse 
etc.  Mostly I was pointing out that I had thought the irreducible 
complexity argument only applied to the development of complexity and 
didn't relate to complexity that has "always been there".  At the time I 
thought you were making a different point than it appears you were.

I was never making the argument the "designed" implies "designed by 
God".  As far as I'm aware this implications isn't generally (well, 
generally publicly) endorsed by irreducible complexity proponents.  This 
was made quite explicit as part of the whole (largely unsuccessful) 
attempt to avoid the separation of church and state issues that would 
otherwise keep intelligent design out of public textbooks as I 
understand it.

Post a reply to this message