1,106
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: − + − − − :Watches prove human designers. By the same token, humans (which are infinitely more sophisticated than watches) prove an Intelligent Designer. − − Other Intelligent Design advocates propose the "eye" as a problem for evolution. − :What good is part of an eye? Seeing is binary, you can or you cannot. Darwinian evolution cannot explain how an eye can evolve, because only a whole eye, entire, is of any utility. − − :Eyes prove Intelligent Designers. Without the craftsmanship of the divine, there wouldn't be the fine-ness and diversity of creation. −
better version
== Analogies ==
== Analogies ==
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy.
Many Intelligent Design advocates propose the "watch" analogy.
:Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its vast sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer?
:Imagine one is walking along a beach and suddenly encounters a wrist-watch. Given its relative sophistication vis-a-vis its environment, and the obvious non-random care with which it was made, does the wrist-watch pre-suppose an Intelligent Designer?
== External Link ==
== External Link ==
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]
[http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Main_Page ResearchID.org]