Kevin Wampler wrote:
> 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.

Nah. They're obviously inferior to the eyes God made in His own image. 
Otherwise, God's eyes wouldn't be the best, and God would thus be imperfect, 
right? Hence, they're merely God's eyes with imperfections added in. ;-)

> 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".

Yeah. Pretty much any absolute in this field leads to logical contradictions.

> On a related issue, I wonder just how common that particular 
> interpretation of "made in God's image" is. 

I would think it's actually pretty common. Depictions of God, Jesus, Angels, 
etc all wind up being human-like. Certainly in the religions where the gods 
have dog-heads or something it gets mentioned often enough you'd think you'd 
notice.

> 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.

Actually, yeah, it is, but they tried to cover it with a snow-job. :-)

I've been amused several times by pointing out that naturally-evolved aliens 
could have designed irreducibly-complex humans just as easily as God could, 
and been answered with "But there's no evidence of aliens!!"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message