Robert Lipkin wrote:
I would argue that Steve's inference from the facts of "disease, war,
violence, inequity, inequality, stupidity of some design features
(knees, elbows,
eyes)" to the conclusion that no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect
(loving) deity exists is a perfectly legitimate inference. That is,
the facts
of evil and suffering are incompatible with the existence of such a deity,
and this incompatibility must be explained away for anyone to
recognize these
facts but still insist on the deity's existence.
To be fair to the intelligent design folks, their argument
is not that the design of the universe IS intelligent, in the sense
of optimal, or efficient, or morally good, or aesthetically pleasing,
but rather that certain facts of the universe point to it having been
designed BY AN intelligence.
This does not, of course, answer Robert's theological
argument, but it does suggest that the usual anti-intelligent-design
jokes about the proximity of the prostate gland to the urethra are
really beside the point.
Perry
*******************************************************
Perry Dane
Professor of Law
Rutgers University
School of Law -- Camden
217 North Fifth Street
Camden, NJ 08102
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/
Work: (856) 225-6004
Fax: (856) 969-7924
Home: (610) 896-5702
*******************************************************
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
