Posted by Tom on September 20, 1999 at 08:51:39:
In Reply to: How intelligent is your designer? posted by rpcman on September 17, 1999 at 19:17:29:
: : Given my religious convictions I prefer to conclude that such developments are
: : products of intelligent design.
: What do you then make of the 'mistakes' in biological design. We've discussed this issue on the board a number of times. Here is one such thread.
Of course I have no real expertise here. Michael Denton has written an essay recently for the journal
"Origins and Design" in which he attacks the widely cited example of the "bad"neurological wiring of the eye.
Though I can't summarize the argument off the top of my head, he basically says that the apparently "inefficient" arrangement of
these neural receptors has to do with the need to get a large supply of blood to the retina. (I've probably botched the argument
badly.) One of the logical weaknesses of the biological "mistakes" argument, is that evolutionists often seem to want to have it both ways. They hold up the perfect adaptions of organisms as evidence of evolution and they hold of the deficiencies
as well. Gould's argument that the Panda's thumb demonstrates bad design has been vigorously attacked, not by creationists
but by scientists more expert on such quesitions.
: : Like Behe, I doubt that changes on such a scale are possible.
: Behe believes in macroevolution (the normal definition--not one that must insert the word non-supernatural before it).
I discovered this weekend, after talking to a close associate of his, that Behe does not accept common
descent, if that's what you mean by macroevolution. His position, I'm told, is that he is
"open to the possibility."
: : Denton seems to be more on the fence so far
: : as the adequacy of naturalistic evolution is concerned.
: Have you read his books? That certainly isn't the impression I get.
I've read his newest book, Nature's Destiny. My judgment is based on conversations
with people close to him. I'm told that he wavers between theistic evolutionism and agnosticism.
: His first book was typical creationism--macroevolution could not occur in his view. His second book was a new view which now acknowledge macroevolution but indicated that an intelligent designer was at work. It turns out that his intelligent designer loves lobsters more than anything else so it decided to give them the best eyes.
: A whole book could be written on the evolution of Denton's theology. ;)