Am 07.01.2011 15:28, schrieb Invisible:

> Let's look at that for a moment. Intelligent Design asserts that living
> organisms are "too perfect" to have arisen by chance. (Of course,
> Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't claim that it _was_ chance!) But
> evolution says that life isn't about "perfection", it's about survival.
> If it works, keep it. If it doesn't work, throw it. In particular,
> things don't have to be "perfect". They just have to be "better than
> anybody else".

One problem with that Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution discussion is 
that it perfectly fails to realize that evolution can be used as a 
design method. Virtually everything man-made is a product of 
evolutionary design.

Take a contemporary car, for instance: Its design is the product of a 
125-year long evolution from Mr. Carl Benz's patented motor car. Which 
in turn was the product of a millennia-long evolution from the first 
wheeled container to then-modern horse carts.

Actually the design principles of today's age (which are considered 
quite intelligent) /heavily/ rely on evolution: Systems are designed as 
components, so that the system as a whole can be changed without having 
to re-design each and every part of it from scratch. a particular 
component's design is based on an existing design deemed most fit for 
the particular task, various modifications are applied and tried out 
(some just in thought, some in reality), some of them are discarded as 
unfit. The design is improved by trying out more modifications, and 
verifying that they make the component more fit for the environment it 
is to "live" in. The best-fit designs make it into other systems. And so 
forth.

No, an intelligent designer does not rule out evolution - I guess an 
intelligent designer /will/ employ evolution. Nor does evolution /per 
se/ rule out an intelligent designer - it just doesn't necessarily 
require one.

Post a reply to this message