> John Clark wrote:
> >
> > Emlyn <emlyn@one.net.au> Wrote:
> >
> > > Being a creationist is pretty dumb, true.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > However, "directed evolution" at least sounds plausible, and
merrits
> > >some attention.
> >
> > Religious people have not pushed directed evolution much and that is
wise.
>
> A very large reason they don't push it is that "directed evolution" or
> "intelligent design" leaves open who/what did the directing/designing.
> Any supra-human intelligence will do. The Almighty of their beliefs is
> just one of many possibilities once such things are assumed.
>
> - samantha
>
I agree with John's assessment. Also, there is matter that biological stuff
just doesn't look designed; it's really bodgy and dumb, in a lot of cases.
So if you go for directed evolution, as a religous believer, you are
painting God as cruel and incompetent. That mightn't be the prefered option.
Emlyn
I work in mysterious ways.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:20 MDT