R
rossum
Guest
Then you are agreeing that your dichotomy was too limiting, and are accepting at least a trichotomy of design, not-design and both.I have pointed out that there can be an element of Chance **within **the framework of Design
Why not? What is impossible about an island of design in a sea of not-design? You accept islands of not-design in a sea of design. Expand the islands and shrink the sea. You get a lake of design in a continent of not-design.but there cannot be an element of Design without a framework.
The logic we are discussing applies to both. My analogy stands.The analagy is unsound because a Jackson Pollock painting is static and doesn’t contain living, purposeful beings.
Of course it is. The designer is external to the designed object. The hammer-designer is separate from and external to the hammer. Unless you are saying that every individual living organism is the designer, then the designer is external to all living organisms. The designer’s purpose belongs to the designer. Other living organisms can set other purposes separate from the purposes of the designer. Or are you saying that humans have no free will and must at all times follow the purposes of the designer, and no other purposes?The purpose of the designer is not extrinsic!
Nor would life exist. By our very presence here we are living in a universe where life is possible. This is the anthropic principle. If there were a universe in which life were not possible, then we would never be present to observe it.Not at all. The element of Chance within the framework of Design does not alter the fundamentally rational nature of the universe. Science wouldn’t exist if the universe were fundamentally disorderly and unpredictable.
rossum