Pericles,
I thought you said, ‘the body was well designed.’ Que?

You don’t remember saying that? Here’s the quote: “I would not dream of suggesting that the body is poorly designed.”

How else could that be interpreted?

What’s with toenails? Well, I was glad I had a set today when someone stepped on my foot on a busy train. And Pericles, I’m also glad at last I’ve found something we have in common. It seems we’re both cricket fans. Three times in my life I’ve visited the hospital because of cricket injuries. I can sympathise with your bruises.

Tony,
I’m sorry; I didn’t read your previous post before I put mine in. They two posts were submitted somewhat close together and I started writing mine before noticing you’d put yours in.

What part of neo-Lamarckist don't I understand?
Most of it. What is the difference between a neo-Lamarckist and an old-style Lamarckist?

‘Why is it necessary to believe that God is in the watch making trade to believe that it exists?’
If we are talking about any unspecified or imaginary god, then we’re free to believe anything we care to. Yet Nigel’s article refers to the Christian God as revealed in Jesus Christ. This is something specific. The Christian God is known as synonymous with the Creator.

Thanks AJ, for your comment.
I tend to see the terms Darwinist and evolutionist as mostly synonymous. In this I don’t think I’m alone judging by the comments of some others here. Just as it is with how Marxism is mostly synonymous with communism and Keynes is often synonymous with laisser faire economics (or whatever it was he was advocating, I’m no economist.) Darwin’s philosophy changed the way the world thinks about nature. In many ways, he rules the world from his grave in Westminster.

The term Neo-Darwinism means something specific, and many highly qualified biologists are happy to identify themselves with that view. Yet if you’d prefer, I’d be happy to exchange those words (Darwin and evolution) in my posts above. It doesn’t change much for me.

Now I’ll try to drag my comments somewhere towards the topic at hand.

Pericles,
We could talk about cricket injuries or other unpleasantness such as hair growing in places we don’t appreciate. However, you haven’t grasped the Christian philosophy if you think that the world is this way because that is how God planned or designed it. What is is not necessarily what ought to be.

No Christian (or perhaps I should say no Christian who’s read the Bible) believes that this world is a pristine representation of the world that God created. While we see evidence of design in creation everywhere, we also see many things that are far from ideal and very much undesired. The world is spoiled and fallen from its original state. The Bible talks about the earth groaning under a curse, waiting for its liberation. It speaks of a future time of refreshing and restoration.

Restoration implies restoring something back to its original state. We get a picture of the original state that God created when we read about the Edenic garden. Jesus spoke about how at the beginning, ‘God made them male and female.’ He affirmed marriage in relation to the first marriage, of a man becoming one with his wife. The point I’m trying to make is that evidence of design doesn’t imply that everything is as it was designed. That homosexuality or anything else now exists doesn’t necessarily imply that it was part of the original creation. ‘Is’ does not imply ‘ought’.

Oh, really, Dan S de Merengue?

>>Here’s the quote: “I would not dream of suggesting that the body is poorly designed". How else could that be interpreted?<<

You could make a start by reading the rest:

"I would not dream of suggesting that the body is poorly designed. In fact, I would go further - I don't accept that the body has been 'designed' at all. Like Topsy, it just growed."

But I guess you just stopped at "poorly designed", didn't you. I can understand that.

>>What’s with toenails? Well, I was glad I had a set today when someone stepped on my foot on a busy train<<

If you are suggesting that toenails are any form of protection to the toes, you are definitely not a cricketer. A bruised foot heals within a couple of weeks. A blackened toenail, complete with the congealed blood between the nail and the skin that prevents you from cutting the damn thing properly, lasts for the entire season. A fact of which I am right now walking - or hobbling - proof.

>>While we see evidence of design in creation everywhere, we also see many things that are far from ideal and very much undesired<<

That's inconsistent. If you are content that "many things are far from ideal", what's the problem with some folk pointing out design flaws? Is it just because they don't believe in your Designer in the first place? So in your view, Christians are the only sect allowed to admit that some aspects of Design are "very much undesired"?

>>The world is spoiled and fallen from its original state<<

That would indicate that you believe Adam did not have hair sprouting from his ears in his later years.

Nice for him. And for Eve too, I guess.

>>The point I’m trying to make is that evidence of design doesn’t imply that everything is as it was designed. That homosexuality or anything else now exists doesn’t necessarily imply that it was part of the original creation.<<

How inconsistent of you.

But how very convenient.

Hi Dan de Meringue,

So, everything either:

* works pretty satisfactorily, and therefore was designed by God;

or

* doesn't work too well, or is not approved by decent Christians, and therefore ".... is spoiled and fallen from its original state ...."

I guess that just about covers everything, one way or the other.

As an atheist, can I suggest that you can get around this poor-design, or 'fallen from grace' dilemma by considering that your god is possibly (I think it was Mircea Eliade who proposed this) otiose: he/she did her/his bit over those six days, said "yeah, she'll be right," and has retired from the world to be a powerless observer ever since (apart from the burning bushes, manna from heaven, creating vast amounts of water out of nothing for Noah's flood, a bit of smiting here and there), but bitterly disappointed.

That also gets him/her off the hook for allowing the most dreadful tragedies to occur. I guess, if he/she is omniscient AND good, then he/she must be constantly grieving, regretting, and thinking "Christ, what was the bloody point of THAT ?".

Oh well, with billions of billions of galaxies, and probably billions of planets too, she can practise on one of the others until she gets it right: no ear-hair, no toe-nails, smaller avocado stones, stable tectonic plates, smarter-looking emus next time.

Dan
What do you think of the fact that most of the mainstream churches in Australia – Anglican, Catholic, Uniting etc – accept the theory of evolution? At the very least, it suggest you are not speaking for all Christians when you identify Creationism with Christianity.

>>Most of it. What is the difference between a neo-Lamarckist and an old-style Lamarckist?<<

Old school Lamarckists were definitely wrong. Lamarckism is usually held up as an example of a plausible hypothesis which was not supported by evidence.

Neo-Lamarckists accept the current understanding of genetic and evolutionary theory; as best they understand it. There is evidence in reputable and repeatable studies for epigenetic inheritance, which may not have been exactly what Lamarck was getting at but which is close enough that I'll use his name.

>>If we are talking about any unspecified or imaginary god, then we’re free to believe anything we care to.<<

Personally I only believe there's the one god and that It isn't imaginary. I like polytheism because I like Classical mythology, but I don't think it's a very rational belief system.

>>The Christian God is known as synonymous with the Creator.<<

At least the Christians managed to get that much right: God is indeed the Creator. Where they start to go wrong is insisting that It's the Designer. Apparently the notion creation without design is too much for them get their head around. Go figure.

Cheers,

Tony