> Richard Dawkins doesn't agree.  See:
> http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_3.html

Can't get the link to come up at the moment, but regarding:

> Speaking of Paley's argument that the intricate design of the
creation
> required a creator:
>
> "So ran Paley's argument,....
> wrong, or at least superfluous. We now know that the order
> and apparent
> purposefulness of the living world has come about through an
entirely
> different process, a process that works without the need for
> any designer
> and one that is a consequence of basically very simple laws
> of physics. This
> is the process of evolution by natural selection, discovered
> by Charles
> Darwin and, independently, by Alfred Russel Wallace."

I still don't see where "a process that works without the need for any
designer" is remotely equivalent to "a system which does not allow for
the existence of a Creator". As an overly-simplistic example, the
automatic transmission in my car works completely without human
intervention, and shows no indications of ever expecting to do or ever
having done otherwise. But it didn't design or build itself.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *