I wonder if they\u2019ve thought this through. Are they really going to press this, so that we end up with a model in which the successively modified forms of organisms are to be explained by a group of well-meaning but ultimately not particularly advanced aliens who visit the planet regularly with improvements<\/a> they\u2019ve only just come up with? Do they really want to claim that there was not merely initial design but successive tinkering, on the analogy of designers of successive models of cars, to account for what we find in nature?<\/p>\n Since almost all of their support comes from religious believers, I can\u2019t imagine how anyone will continue to support Intelligent Design\u2019s creationism<\/a>, if it envisages the creators as successive generations of engineers who are trying out new ideas as they go along.<\/p>\n At any rate, what gets lost on the analogically-challenged cdesign proponensists<\/a> is that the human engineers in the analogy are superfluous<\/em> in the biological realm. It has been shown time and again that natural selection and genetic variation can provide all the tinkering improvements necessary to achieve the same effect.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/farm4.static.flickr.com\/3046\/2508875714_d8b92ec9e5.jpg?v=0\")
<\/a>At UD, Gil Dodgen replies that this in fact undermines the argument for evolution, since in fact cars are produced by engineers, and thus each successive \u201cspecies\u201d of car is the result of design.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-4530541934658249077?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"