How can we reconcile the argument of intelligent design with supposed design flaws?

[inocente]

It is correct, at some level, that our ability to explain nature has nothing to do with salvation but that would be because our salvation does not depend upon having knowledge of nature – Christians don’t believe that having gnosis of some kind or other is what saves us.

But that does not imply nature can be self-explanatory.

If nature does explain itself then God need not exist – or, at least, we would have no reason to believe that he does.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that nature not explain itself, that God is necessary AND that an ability to explain nature is entirely irrelevant with regard to the salvation of any particular individual, but that it can be known with certainty that God explains nature without hanging anyone’s salvation on knowing that.

However, it is also true that if there is no reason from nature to believe in God because nature explains itself – that would imply the existence of every aspect of nature including human beings – then no one would think they needed salvation. If being saved depends in any way upon human cooperation but humans have no good reason to cooperate with God because God is irrelevant and unnecessary, then the salvation of any particular individual would seem very unlikely because human thought would not provide any reasons at all for thinking God exists and, therefore, no reasons for thinking we need to be saved.

I know people who think of god only as an explanation, but they don’t see their god as a person, they are deist or pantheist or whatever. I don’t know any Christians who came to faith for any reason other than by a relationship with Christ.

"At daybreak, Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them. But he said, “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.” - Luke 4

It seems clear that Jesus wasn’t sent to put God forward as an explanatory hypothesis, but instead to preach the good news, and even so the people looked for him. So it seems God doesn’t share your concern.

 

[inocente]

So God had no plan for Creation? And Revelation has no purpose?

"For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back from captivity. I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile.” - Jeremiah 29

 

[inocente]

It is absurd to compare human perfection with divine perfection. Key word: " absolutely".

Please argue that with the author of Hebrews.

Loss of faith is an adequate reason.

You’ve done nothing to show that even those few ex-Catholics support your claim that disasters “are undoubtedly flaws from the point of view of the victims”.

• So you believe the miracles attributed to Jesus and the Apostles have a scientific explanation?*

You gave a definition of miracle as “An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency” and I replied “Just because a miracle cannot be explained does not mean that God broke or suspended any of his laws”.

So you don’t believe God permits suffering and disasters?

Your claim that God only sometimes intervenes through compassion doesn’t follow from Gods’ love being infinite.

Vague assertions are also worthless. Please cite one example.

There’s nothing vague about you clicking the quote buttons for yourself to go back up the thread. It’s not like the posts have been lost, they’re all still there, see for yourself.

Misrepresentation. In this context belief in God is the subject not salvation.

Misrepresentation. In every context belief in God for a Christian is about salvation, or else Christ’s sacrifice is irrelevant to belief.

*Irrelevant. The present topic is the significance of the statement

“Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these…” - Jesus
How is that related to salvation?*

The present topic is the OP.

We’ve already been over that verse many times. One last time, I find no commentaries which agree with you, Jesus never blurts out asides or wanders off-topic, he is using the flowers as an illustration for his subject, and his subject is salvation, not intelligent design, because as Jesus says "I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.” - Luke 4

Here for example is a professor at a Catholic university:

*"Pope Francis again lifts up St. Francis of Assisi as our example, but he points also to Jesus in a passage on being fully attentive to the human and non-human other that merits full quotation:

“We are speaking of an attitude of the heart, one which approaches life with serene attentiveness, which is capable of being fully present to someone without thinking of what comes next, which accepts each moment as a gift from God to be lived to the full. Jesus taught us this attitude when he invited us to contemplate the lilies of the field and the birds of the air, or when seeing the rich young man and knowing his restlessness, ‘he looked at him with love’ (Mark 10:21). He was completely present to everyone and to everything, and in this way he showed us the way to overcome that unhealthy anxiety which makes us superficial, aggressive and compulsive consumers.”

To be open in a manner that allows us to see, hear and understand the other means to be completely attentive to the other. It involves redirecting our gaze away from ourselves, an inward gaze that leads us to focus primarily on our own well-being to the exclusion of human and non-human creatures, in order to be open and present to the other to such a degree that we truly encounter and experience them."* - abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/03/16/4426057.htm

When we quote a verse it’s our responsibility not to misrepresent the author’s intent, and Francis gets the intent spot-on by reading the whole passage rather than taking one verse out of context:

*"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”* - Matt 6

Now please, enough, I long ago ran out of anything new to say on your interpretation on that lonely verse.

 

[tonyrey]

*So God had no plan for Creation? And Revelation has no purpose? *

Your quotation presupposes that God created us for a more fundamental purpose: to choose whether to live for Him and others or to live for ourselves. He designed the world as the context in which we can develop our capacity for love. In the words of Keats it is “a vale of soul-making” not merely the product of natural causes of which God is a passive Spectator who never intervenes.

 

[tonyrey]

It is absurd to compare human perfection with divine perfection. Key word: " absolutely".

It remains a fact that it is absurd to compare human perfection with divine perfection.

Loss of faith is an adequate reason.

You’ve done nothing to show that even those few ex-Catholics support your claim that disasters “are undoubtedly flaws from the point of view of the victims”.

Then why else did they lose their faith when they saw people maimed and killed by earthquakes?

So you believe the miracles attributed to Jesus and the Apostles have a scientific explanation?

You gave a definition of miracle as “An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency” and I replied “Just because a miracle cannot be explained does not mean that God broke or suspended any of his laws”.

Do you believe all miracles have a scientific explanation?

So you don’t believe God permits suffering and disasters?

Your claim that God only sometimes intervenes through compassion doesn’t follow from Gods’ love being infinite.

Do you believe God permits suffering and disasters?

Vague assertions are also worthless. Please cite one

• example.
  There’s nothing vague about you clicking the quote buttons for yourself to go back up the thread. It’s not like the posts have been lost, they’re all still there, see for yourself.

Your posts are confusing because they jump from one subject to another - as follows:

In every context belief in God for a Christian is about salvation, or else Christ’s sacrifice is irrelevant to belief.

The topic is not salvation but supposed design flaws in the argument of intelligent design.

*

Irrelevant. The present topic is the significance of the statement

“Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these…” - Jesus
How is that related to salvation?

The present topic is the OP.

We’ve already been over that verse many times. One last time, I find no commentaries which agree with you, Jesus never blurts out asides or wanders off-topic, he is using the flowers as an illustration for his subject, and his subject is salvation, not intelligent design, because as Jesus says "I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.” - Luke 4

Here for example is a professor at a Catholic university:

"Pope Francis again lifts up St. Francis of Assisi as our example, but he points also to Jesus in a passage on being fully attentive to the human and non-human other that merits full quotation…

When we quote a verse it’s our responsibility not to misrepresent the author’s intent, and Francis gets the intent spot-on by reading the whole passage rather than taking one verse out of context…

Now please, enough, I long ago ran out of anything new to say on your interpretation on that lonely verse.*Lonely?

“which accepts each moment as a gift from God to be lived to the full” implies that life with all its wonder and beauty is intended and designed by God. It follows on from the words:

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

It is quite clear that the Father **purposefully creates the universe for us and other living beings. We didn’t just appear as the result of natural causes and coincidences which are all **scientifically explicable. The very word “Father” demonstrates that God has us in mind even though the universe is unaware of our existence. His plan is that we are the stewards of Creation not simply higher mammals…

 

[cfauster]

If nature does explain itself then God need not exist – or, at least, we would have no reason to believe that he does.

I see different kinds of explanations.

I agree that nature points to questions that go beyond itself, and that those questions can’t be answered by scientific investigation and explanations of nature.

But within the constraints of nature, and within the constraints of the scientific method of investigating and explaining nature, I have no problem with the view that nature “explains itself” in that (limited) sense.

 

[tonyrey]

I see different kinds of explanations.

I agree that nature points to questions that go beyond itself, and that those questions can’t be answered by scientific investigation and explanations of nature.

But within the constraints of nature, and within the constraints of the scientific method of investigating and explaining nature, I have no problem with the view that nature “explains itself” in that (limited) sense.

Precisely** how** does nature explain itself? Is there any other aspect of reality which is self-explanatory?

 

[tonyrey]

Without a feasible blueprint the “flawless universe” hypothesis is worthless.

We cannot have anything for nothing. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage…

 

[inocente]

Your quotation presupposes that God created us for a more fundamental purpose: to choose whether to live for Him and others or to live for ourselves. He designed the world as the context in which we can develop our capacity for love. In the words of Keats it is “a vale of soul-making” not merely the product of natural causes of which God is a passive Spectator who never intervenes.

You keep smuggling in that word “design”. Jeremiah’s God has nothing to do with intelligent designers. There are no intelligent designers in the bible. The bible never speaks of your Design versus Chance, or your coincidences and flawed laws.

It remains a fact that it is absurd to compare human perfection with divine perfection.

“For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated.” - Hebrews 10

Not my problem if you want to call the bible absurd.

Then why else did they lose their faith when they saw people maimed and killed by earthquakes?

If they don’t believe in God then they could not possibly share your belief that God designed a flawed world.

And that’s just a tiny number of people you know anecdotally. You’ve given no justification for your blanket statement that disasters “are undoubtedly flaws from the point of view of the victims”. Millions of victims through the ages, and you claim to undoubtedly know what was in the mind of every last one of them.

Do you believe all miracles have a scientific explanation?

One day, yes. The notion that miracles are inexplicable is gravely immoral. If a disease appears to heal miraculously, we have a duty to try to explain how, since then others can be cured. That’s how medicine performs its own miracles, not by standing by marveling at gods-of-the-gaps.

Do you believe God permits suffering and disasters?

Of course. I’ve been arguing throughout that God is omnipotent, whereas you’re claiming they’re flaws caused by limitations in what your intelligent designer could make.

Your posts are confusing because they jump from one subject to another - as follows:
The topic is not salvation but supposed design flaws in the argument of intelligent design.

It’s confusing that you didn’t respond to the point but just pulled that out of thin air. It’s confusing that you said “In this context belief in God is the subject” in post #814, then in the same post “The present topic is the significance of the statement…”, and now you say the topic is the OP, which btw I pointed out to you in post #819.

Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most confusing one of all?

Lonely?

You orphaned the verse.

We didn’t just appear as the result of natural causes and coincidences which are all scientifically explicable.

*“how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all” - Charles Alfred Coulson*

What do you disagree with in those statements?

 

[cfauster]

Precisely** how** does nature explain itself? Is there any other aspect of reality which is self-explanatory?

Again, I agree that the aspect of reality we call nature raises questions that point beyond nature.

Nature "explains itself’ only when it comes to questions limited to nature itself: physical rather than metaphysical questions.

 

[cfauster]

It is quite clear that the Father **purposefully creates the universe for us and other living beings. We didn’t just appear as the result of natural causes and coincidences which are all **scientifically explicable…His plan is that we are the stewards of Creation not simply higher mammals…

Incorporating metaphysical and religious reasoning, yes, I believe it is clear that God is Creator and that at least among God’s purposes is the creation of living beings, including humans “made in God’s image” as stewards of creation, as co-creators in a sense.

As you imply, this can be asserted while acknowledging that humans are mammals, subject to scientific analysis and explanations like any other part of creation (nature).

 

[tonyrey]

Your quotation presupposes that God created us for a more fundamental purpose: to choose whether to live for Him and others or to live for ourselves. He designed the world as the context in which we can develop our capacity for love. In the words of Keats it is “a vale of soul-making” not merely the product of natural causes of which God is a passive Spectator who never intervenes.

The Bible is not a philosophical or theological treatise. According to your argument we should believe in nothing else but what is in the Bible! It is also absurd to think God had no plan or purpose when He created us. Didn’t He know what He was doing?

It remains true that God created us for a more fundamental purpose: to choose whether to live for Him and others or to live for ourselves. He designed the world as the context in which we can develop our capacity for love. In the words of Keats it is “a vale of soul-making” not merely the product of natural causes of which God is a passive Spectator who never intervenes.

It remains a fact that it is absurd to compare human perfection with divine perfection.

“For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated.” - Hebrews 10

The word “divinely” or “absolutely” is missing.

Not my problem if you want to call the bible absurd.

It is your interpretation of the Bible that is absurd: “perfect” = “divinely perfect”

Then why else did they lose their faith when they saw people maimed and killed by earthquakes?

If they don’t believe in God then they could not possibly share your belief that God designed a flawed world.

Non sequitur. They lost their faith **as the result of **finding out that people maimed and killed by earthquakes.

And that’s just a tiny number of people you know anecdotally. You’ve given no justification for your blanket statement that disasters “are undoubtedly flaws from the point of view of the victims”. Millions of victims through the ages, and you claim to undoubtedly know what was in the mind of every last one of them.

Another non sequitur. I have not claimed **everyone **who lacks faith does so for that reason but it is certainly one of the main reasons for not believing in God. That is why so much has been written about the Problem of Evil.

Do you believe all miracles have a scientific explanation?

One day, yes. The notion that miracles are inexplicable is gravely immoral.

In that case Jesus was immoral because He told the Apostles they would have the power to perform miracles in His name. Does the power of the Holy Spirit have a scientific explanation?

If a disease appears to heal miraculously, we have a duty to try to explain how, since then others can be cured. That’s how medicine performs its own miracles, not by standing by marveling at gods-of-the-gaps.

So you believe** all **the miracles worked by Jesus and the Apostles have a **natural **explanation? And **supernatural **power is an illusion?

Do you believe God permits suffering and disasters?

Of course.

Then why does God permit suffering and disasters? Does He will them or want them to happen?

I’ve been arguing throughout that God is omnipotent, whereas you’re claiming they’re flaws caused by limitations in what your intelligent designer could make.

False. It is the **limitations **of natural laws that lead to disasters. Even the sceptic David Hume acknowledged that fact.

Your posts are confusing because they jump from one subject to another - as follows:
The topic is not

salvation but supposed design flaws in the argument of intelligent design.It’s confusing that you didn’t respond to the point but just pulled that out of thin air. It’s confusing that you said “In this context belief in God is the subject” in post #814, then in the same post “The present topic is the significance of the statement…”, and now you say the topic is the OP, which btw I pointed out to you in post #819.

Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most confusing one of all?

I’m not the only one who has been baffled.

Lonely?

You orphaned the verse.

?

We didn’t just appear as the result of natural causes and coincidences which are all scientifically explicable.

*“how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer *

He certainly didn’t believe the only form of knowledge is scientific.

“Either God is in the whole of Nature, with no gaps, or He’s not there at all” - Charles Alfred Coulson

What do you disagree with in those statements?

God is indeed in the whole of Nature but that fact does not exclude divine intervention. Otherwise Christianity is false because miracles are a fundamental part of Christ’s teaching.

 

[tonyrey]

It is quite clear that the Father **purposefully **

I agree with the proviso that we also have been given supernatural power by being made in God’s image and likeness - which of course is not subject to scientific analysis and explanations like any other part of creation.

 

[cfauster]

I agree with the proviso that we also have been given supernatural power by being made in God’s image and likeness - which of course is not subject to scientific analysis and explanations like any other part of creation.

Agreed.

A wonderful dialogue is available on reason, nature, science, God’s purposes, and the status of humans. All papers and transcripts of the Q&A following each paper are available. One article in that dialogue relevant to this CAF thread is:


THE HUMAN BEING – GOD’S PLAN OR JUST SHEER CHANCE? by ULRICH LÜKE

Pope Benedict XVI’s comments, as always, are very beneficial to read.

 

[tonyrey]

Agreed.

A wonderful dialogue is available on reason, nature, science, God’s purposes, and the status of humans. All papers and transcripts of the Q&A following each paper are available. One article in that dialogue relevant to this CAF thread is:


THE HUMAN BEING – GOD’S PLAN OR JUST SHEER CHANCE? by ULRICH LÜKE

Pope Benedict XVI’s comments, as always, are very beneficial to read.

Thank you for those valuable references. “self-organisation” is the key word in explaining life and it disposes of the mechanistic explanation for once and for all. The creative plasticity of living organisms is undoubtedly purposeful even though they are unaware of what they are doing. Unlike inorganic structures they have an urge to survive, develop, co-operate and reproduce. Yet even greater than the miracle of life is our power to understand and control not only ourselves but our environment. As so often Shakespeare summed it up perfectly:

“What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.
Sure, he that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and god-like reason
To fust in us unused.” - Hamlet

 

[inocente]

The Bible is not a philosophical or theological treatise. According to your argument we should believe in nothing else but what is in the Bible!

Never said that, please don’t misrepresent me. I said “Jeremiah’s God has nothing to do with intelligent designers. There are no intelligent designers in the bible. The bible never speaks of your Design versus Chance, or your coincidences and flawed laws.”

*Non sequitur. They lost their faith **as the result of ***finding out that people maimed and killed by earthquakes.

1. If they lost their faith then they don’t believe in God.
2. If they don’t believe in God then they cannot possibly believe that God made a flawed universe, or that God made the universe at all.
3. Since they don’t believe in God.

If you can think of a clearer way to spell it out then let me know.

*Another non sequitur. I have not claimed **everyone ***who lacks faith does so for that reason but it is certainly one of the main reasons for not believing in God. That is why so much has been written about the Problem of Evil.

Never said that, please don’t misrepresent me. I said “You’ve given no justification for your blanket statement that disasters “are undoubtedly flaws from the point of view of the victims”. Millions of victims through the ages, and you claim to undoubtedly know what was in the mind of every last one of them.”

In that case Jesus was immoral because He told the Apostles they would have the power to perform miracles in His name. Does the power of the Holy Spirit have a scientific explanation?

Never said that, etc. I said just because a miracle is inexplicable it does not follow that the laws of nature were broken or suspended, it only follows that we can’t explain it. I then said “The notion that miracles are inexplicable is gravely immoral” for the reasons stated.

So you believe* all ***the miracles worked by Jesus and the Apostles have a **natural **explanation? And **supernatural **power is an illusion?

I don’t know. I don’t have faith in faith healers. I have faith that knowledge is better than ignorance.

Then why does God permit suffering and disasters? Does He will them or want them to happen?

We went over this, please read Thomas Aquinas.

I’m not the only one who has been baffled.

Gossip.

He certainly didn’t believe the only form of knowledge is scientific.

Never said that, etc.

God is indeed in the whole of Nature but that fact does not exclude divine intervention. Otherwise Christianity is false because miracles are a fundamental part of Christ’s teaching.

If God is in the whole of nature then God is in the whole of nature, not just in interventions.

Thanks for the conversation, we seem to be repeating ourselves and I can’t think of anything more to say, see you on another thread .

 

[tonyrey]

A superb answer to this question is given by St Thomas in his chapter on The Providence of God:

"Since, however, God is the cause of things by His intellect, and thus it behooves that the type of every effect should pre-exist in Him, as is clear from what has gone before (19, 4), it is necessary that the type of the order of things towards their end should pre-exist in the divine mind: and the type of things ordered towards an end is, properly speaking, providence."

In other words God has planned the order and purposeful activity in the universe. But then the Problem of Evil raises its ugly head:

“Further, a wise provider excludes any defect or evil, as far as he can, from those over whom he has a care. But we see many evils existing. Either, then, God cannot hinder these, and thus is not omnipotent; or else He does not have care for everything.”

The solution is simple:

“Since God, then, provides universally for all being, it belongs to His providence to permit certain defects in particular effects, that the perfect good of the universe may not be hindered, for if all evil were prevented, much good would be absent from the universe.”

The significant word here is “defects” which are inevitable in a physical universe. As the Catechism points out, all created things have limitations of one kind or another. St Thomas quotes St Augustine:

“Almighty God would in no wise permit evil to exist in His works, unless He were so almighty and so good as to produce good even from evil.”

The next question is whether God has immediate providence over everything to which the answer is:

“God’s immediate provision over everything does not exclude the action of secondary causes; which are the executors of His order, as was said above.”

The laws of nature are an example of secondary causes which imply that the universe is not under God’s direct control : "It is in the nature of some things to be contingent". The sheer multiplicity and complexity of the universe lead inevitably to imperfection because of an important factor that is often overlooked: interference, either intentional or accidental. That is where moral and natural evil fit into the panorama of reality. In Shakespeare’s words “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” and “the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to”…
In that respect it is metaphorically true that “the devil is in the details”.

 

[tonyrey]

“Further, a wise provider excludes any defect or evil, as far as he can, from those over whom he has a care. But we see many evils existing. Either, then, God cannot hinder these, and thus is not omnipotent; or else He does not have care for everything.”

The significant words are “as far as he can”. St Thomas doesn’t believe God’s power is limited but he recognises the need for consistency. It would be pointless to create the laws of nature and then suspend them whenever they harm living organisms. Order would become chaos…

 

[tonyrey]

The “supposed design flaws” exist only in the flawed reasoning of those who believe God does not design the universe or would have done so inefficiently if He existed. It is not a far cry from atheism to rejection of Design. Most of the great philosophers and scientists believed the universe exists for a purpose. e.g. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Cicero, Descartes, Aquinas, Pascal, Bacon, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant, Newton, Rousseau, Locke, Berkeley, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Kierkegaard, Mendel, Faraday, Whitehead, Maritain, Einstein, Planck, Kelvin, Faraday…

 

[IWantGod]

The “supposed design flaws” exist only in the flawed reasoning of those who believe God does not design the universe or would have done so inefficiently if He existed. It is not a far cry from atheism to rejection of Design. Most of the great philosophers and scientists believed the universe exists for a purpose. e.g. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Cicero, Descartes, Aquinas, Pascal, Bacon, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant, Newton, Rousseau, Locke, Berkeley, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Kierkegaard, Mendel, Faraday, Whitehead, Maritain, Einstein, Planck, Kelvin, Faraday…

I believe the universe exists for a purpose. I agree with a teleological model of the world. I just don’t believe in the kind of design that you appear to agree with. the kind that Behe believes in.