Jim Henderson wrote:
> Not saying I agree with that idea, but that's the counter argument that 
> I've run into in the past myself.

Sure, except that's factually incorrect. It's easy to do experiments to 
show it's pretty trivial to evolve something that does a rather 
sophisticated function without actually designing how it does it, and 
indeed with the result being difficult or impossible to analyze for how 
it works. In other words, no, the watch doesn't imply the watchmaker.

This is the same "I can't imagine how it could be anything else, so I 
must be right."  The old "since my imagination is inadequate, I must be 
right" argument. They said the same thing about thunder too.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message