Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!eagle!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Evidence, gentlemen.  Not mysticism.
Message-ID: <1035@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 23:09:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1035
Posted: Fri May 31 23:09:48 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Jun-85 02:47:47 EDT
References: <402@oliveb.UUCP> <616@digi-g.UUCP>
Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association
Lines: 19

>>>"Design" is evidence of a "Designer"!

>>What makes you think that any living creatures show any signs of design?
>>Most biological systems seem like massive kludges to me.

> Don't say this!  Otherwise, the creationists will start saying
> "kludges are evidence of a hacker" and we'll be back where we started!
> 
> Merlyn Leroy

If you assume the existence of your favorite deity in advance a priori ipso
facto etc. then ANY evidence, interpreted in any way (it's evidence of
design, it's evidence of a kludge), is "proof" of that deity.  Teleological
nonsense aside, interpreting evidence in terms of a presupposed purpose you
have in mind is bound to "prove" your assumptions.  Which is as far as
creationism will ever go.
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr