Science, Creation & EvolutionHas there been a good argument against Evolution?Not really, but I will address what I think you might be getting at: If the position of the skeptic is "a Creator would not design His creation with poor design features", I would respond that we are only capable of subjective observations about the 'quality' of design. Much of our presuppositions about this quality are based in scientific ignorance, and our insight is revised and modified as scientific data improves. Goulds idea of a poor design of the Panda's thumb, or the other fella's comments about the ineffeciency of the vertebrate eye are good examples of subjective view points that turn out to be just plain wrong. Science, and medicine have yet to come up with a 'better design' than the Creator for any areas, therefore the premise that 'God is not responsible since if He was, we would not see bad design' is a faulty premise. Design purpose, even a purpose to 'last a finite period' must be taken into consideration, before we attribute a 'mistake' to the Creator. Skeptics don't do this at all. Does this answer where you were going? |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame