It's not my dog, it didn't bite you, and besides you hit the dog first anyway. --Anon
An evolutionist has criticized my previous post about Darwin's warning that we must not anthropomorphize God. Darwin argued repeatedly that God would never have created this inefficient and capricious world, but when it came to complex designs such as the eye, Darwin suddenly backtracked.
In his book Darwin made several failed attempts to reckon with the problem of how his blind process of evolution could create such wonders as the eye. The idea that the eye evolved on its own seemed absurd, but Darwin argued that while it is tempting to see God as the master engineer who crafted complex organs such as the eye, this would make God too much like man.
Darwin agreed that the perfection of the eye reminds us of the telescope which resulted from the highest of human intellect. Was it not right to conclude that the eye was also the product of a great intellect? This may seem the obvious answer but Darwin warned against it, for we should not "assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man." Better to imagine the eye as the result of natural selection's perfecting powers rather than having God too much involved in the world.
So according to Darwin, God would never create inefficient designs, God would never create capricious patterns, and besides we can't know the mind of God anyway. It seems contradictory but nonetheless my critic complains:
Religion drives your 'science' Mr Hunter (although you don't ever seem to have really done any) every bit as much as the people at Answers In Genesis or ICR. You have an agenda, an a priori commitment to defending your favourite set of ancient fables, and folklorish poetry.
So in other words, I believe in ancient fables and folklorish poetry, these beliefs drive my scientific research, and besides I haven't done any scientific research anyway.
It's not my dog, it didn't bite you, and besides you hit the dog first anyway.
