Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?

Are you suggesting that scientists have found out how the designer effected mutations, and seemingly random mutations at that? Or that they know how the designer effected non-random survival, in such a way that biologists think they are justified in calling it natural selection? I think science has overwhelmingly shown that what you call "method" is in fact a natural process.If I may paraphrase your conclusion: because the process is known, not the designer an sich, but the very concept of a designer has become irrelevant.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Yes, once the method is known, the very fact that there is a designer is irrelevant except in the areas I mentioned.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Jar, why are you playing at misunderstanding me?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

There is no play.If I misunderstand you it is not for lack of trying.If there is some method that the designer uses, either those we know about or ones we will learn about in the future, then that knowledge is what is important, not the designer.AbE:You said: Once a process is known then the designer is irrelevant as well as the concept of a designer.Edited by jar, : add more material

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Isn't that what the thread is all about? As long as our methods work, what difference does it make if they're "wrong"?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

P writesRingo writes When F. F, Bruce was writing his book, 'The New Testament Douments, are they reliable', one of his friends, that was used to review his research, asked "reliable as what"?I would ask, scientific explanations work at demonstrating what? How a tree works? What exacally do they work to do and what questions concening the designer do they solve?You have faith in the Scientific explanations, to what end?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

As I said, to the end that they work. If scientific explanations help us to cure diseases and to put men on the moon, then they're good enough. It's nice to know things just for the sake of knowing but it isn't necessary.Knowing that a designer existed would add nothing. We'd still know what we've figured out for ourselves and we still wouldn't know what we haven't figured out yet. Knowing that a designer existed wouldn't help us to do anything.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Science yields results--it helps us learn.Creationism does not.And in fact, creationism is the opposite of science.

​

--Science helps us figure things out, creationism tells us not to bother, we know everything already.

​

--Science reflects the real world and what we learn from it, creationism asks us to believe much that is contrary to that real world evidence.

​

--Science is based on the most up-to-date knowledge, while creationism is a tribal belief invented by shamans thousands of years ago.

​

--Science seeks to expand our knowledge, while creationism seeks to deny, misrepresent, or ignore much of what we have learned.

And, as Heinlein succinctly stated, "Belief gets in the way of learning."

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This is likely to be a little off-topic, but science tells us no such thing.And I'm not sure how the rest of your post addresses anything...JonEdited by Jon, : Extending italix

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!

"Just think how I could improve things if I had his power."What would you improve? Is there anything other than humans that you would improve?

What might be changed is irrelevant. The question is "Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?"

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I would remove feline leukaemia from the world.Does that answer your question?

"Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?"We would have to ask the Designer. It has been my experience that most people have a problem believing in a Designer because they have a problem with the design. I am interested to know what you all think... Do you "dislike" any part of the universe other than humans?

Hi, jar. Can you see where this is going?Everything is perfect apart from humans and this is sin.Yada, yada, fall, yada, yada, free will, yada, yada....

Larni, you are the one who said you could improve on the universe. That is why I ask... Do you "dislike" any part of the universe other than humans? I would truly like to know your answer.