Date sent: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 14:48:53 -0700 (PDT)

The parts Roger has written are in italics. The parts Toby has written are in normal text. 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Toby: Lets see: skip darwin, and use evolutionary based science in its place. what is the first cause?

> I will reply further after we deal with first cause, but do answer the why it would be younger.

> I take it you say "mistakes" because really there are no mistakes, no valuable higherarchy, just random events. Define mistake, if you don't assume humanness has value. I mean, do you assume that humans are the product of purpose?

Roger: In the real world there are huge numbers of mistakes... if the real world has the purpose of creating human beings. I say the world would be younger because the designer would not have had to make the trillion-and-one mistakes per day that the evolution system requires to create humans. And the world would be smaller because the designer would not have had to create uncounted numbers of galaxies that do nothing but shed the faintest of lights upon the Earth.

I think you were the first to tell me about all the non-seen mass in the U and the need for it all to be there to make our measurements work out; it surprises me that you think most of the U is irrelevant. but i guess it is ok for evolutionary models of history.

Again, if you look at pre-20th century concepts of a universe, they reflect what a designed universe would look like:

• there is a big earth which is a place for plants and animals.
• there are rivers, lakes and a big sea for water plants and animals
• there is a ceiling overhead with some nice decorations.
• there is an energy source to keep it all running.
• and there is weather and natural disasters to break the monotony

You don't need any more than this to sustain humans **once you have designed them** and if you run this place just a few thousand years, the "beginning" of it will be become mytholgoical. It's all you need. This is why a designed universe would be younger and smaller.

and you don't need free will either, in fact free will creates more problems than anything else. free will is inneficient and more painful than igonorance, how has it survived, where are the humans w/o free will, those who operate only on instinct?

GOTTA GO, I WILL GET TO THIS SECTION LATER

Let me ask you:

• How old do you think the universe is?
• How big is it?
• Is all this universe established just to produce one world with humans on it?

> also, i guess you would agree with the following statements:

> Because of Darwin and his progeny "Now atheists, and others who wish to be, are free from the need for religion."

This reflects an odd fixation on Darwin. Science, as I know it, has moved so far beyond this statement that it's hard to relate to. I have to ask: free from religion in what sense? In the sense of explaining how the universe works? (ans: clearly yes) In the sense of explaining how people think (ans: clearly no.)

> All design is apparent.

I have no idea what this means. It needs context. If this is another way of asking is there an Intelligent Designer? No, there isn't.

> Purposeful form of life is not really purposeful, it is random events without an underlying purpose.

Once again. This needs context before I comment on it.

> Only the Darwin world-view can explain the mysteries of life. (your younger, more efficient, achievement of life would be a corollary to this broader concept or "evidence" to support it)

I'd say evolutionary science has proved itself to be heads-and-shoulders better than non-evolution-based alternatives. Keep in mind that DNA, GM foods and such, and almost all the medical advances since the 1980's are based on this "Darwin world-view", as this statement puts it.

> you might even agree that biology is the study of complicated things we define as life which give an appearance of having purposeful design.

I can't figure this one out, either. It needs more context.

> which do you agree with (if any)?

Let me point out that the above quotes are all using Darwin as a symbol for the whole field of evolution-based science, and I am answering them based on that assumption. If that is not your intent, if you are trying to talk about Darwin "The real man", then we need to do some defining of terms before I can answer your question accurately.

Let me also ask... where did you find such archeaic language? These quotes all look like they are contemporary with Darwin. Point me to this source as your Intelligent Design article!

The parts Roger has written are in italics. The parts Toby has written are in normal text. 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36