<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Seeking the Designer</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.speculist.com/evolution/finding-the-des.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.speculist.com/evolution/finding-the-des.html</link>
	<description>Live to see it.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2021 08:21:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harvey</title>
		<link>https://blog.speculist.com/evolution/finding-the-des.html#comment-3610</link>
		<dc:creator>Harvey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:35:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/specblog/?p=1544#comment-3610</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I read all that.  I got vertigo from it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read all that.  I got vertigo from it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karl Hallowell</title>
		<link>https://blog.speculist.com/evolution/finding-the-des.html#comment-3609</link>
		<dc:creator>Karl Hallowell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:56:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/specblog/?p=1544#comment-3609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Incidentally, this is the approach that is most productive for proponents of the intelligent design theory. Find the designer. Poking holes in evolution isn&#039;t sufficient.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Incidentally, this is the approach that is most productive for proponents of the intelligent design theory. Find the designer. Poking holes in evolution isn&#8217;t sufficient.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Bowermaster</title>
		<link>https://blog.speculist.com/evolution/finding-the-des.html#comment-3608</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Bowermaster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:48:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/specblog/?p=1544#comment-3608</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If either Hoyle&#039;s panspermia hypothesis or Bostrom&#039;s simulation hypothesis turn out to be correct, then you have both design and evolution. And John Smart&#039;s idea of a &quot;designerless&quot; cosmos that increases in intelligence through myriad iterations is predicated on evolution. So I guess my problem with the &quot;whole ID vs. evolution&quot; debate is that it&#039;s really the evolution vs. creationism debate, when it could be something much more interesting.

If the cosmos just plain &lt;i&gt;exists&lt;/i&gt; in some absolute and self-explanatory fashion, then nothing would not have been easier. It wouldn&#039;t even have been possible. The trouble with any explanation for existence (including God) is that it demands a context. A self-contextualizing fact is not intellecutally satisfying, as I noted in the update &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001699.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here.&lt;/a&gt;

If you say, &quot;Yeah, but God just exists,&quot; well, that seems to be exactly what Hawking is saying about the universe. I want more! :-)

I like the Magorium quote, btw.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If either Hoyle&#8217;s panspermia hypothesis or Bostrom&#8217;s simulation hypothesis turn out to be correct, then you have both design and evolution. And John Smart&#8217;s idea of a &#8220;designerless&#8221; cosmos that increases in intelligence through myriad iterations is predicated on evolution. So I guess my problem with the &#8220;whole ID vs. evolution&#8221; debate is that it&#8217;s really the evolution vs. creationism debate, when it could be something much more interesting.</p>
<p>If the cosmos just plain <i>exists</i> in some absolute and self-explanatory fashion, then nothing would not have been easier. It wouldn&#8217;t even have been possible. The trouble with any explanation for existence (including God) is that it demands a context. A self-contextualizing fact is not intellecutally satisfying, as I noted in the update <a href="https://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/001699.html" rel="nofollow">here.</a></p>
<p>If you say, &#8220;Yeah, but God just exists,&#8221; well, that seems to be exactly what Hawking is saying about the universe. I want more! <img src='https://blog.speculist.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>I like the Magorium quote, btw.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Gordon</title>
		<link>https://blog.speculist.com/evolution/finding-the-des.html#comment-3607</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Gordon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:39:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/specblog/?p=1544#comment-3607</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was thinking about some of these issues this morning on the way to work.

Ben Stein&#039;s documentary &quot;Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed&quot; raises the whole ID v. Evolution debate once again.

Frankly, I find that debate a bit tiresome.  To my friends on the ID side: no, there is no disagreement among scientists about whether evolution is a reality.  Evolution is central to both biology and geology.  To suggest otherwise is to engage in dishonesty.  And isn&#039;t that a sin?

I would remind Dawkins that there are important questions beyond science.  Religion and philosophy are  efforts to get those answers.

A couple of years ago I wrote a post entitled &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000473.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Miracle&lt;/a&gt;.&quot;

The miracle I was talking about is the miracle of existence.  It seems to me that we often miss how remarkable existence is. Wouldn&#039;t &lt;i&gt;nothing&lt;/i&gt; have been easier?  

Wonder and awe is appropriate.

The Mr. Magorium movie has a perfect line: 

&quot;Your Life Is An Occasion, Rise To It!&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was thinking about some of these issues this morning on the way to work.</p>
<p>Ben Stein&#8217;s documentary &#8220;Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed&#8221; raises the whole ID v. Evolution debate once again.</p>
<p>Frankly, I find that debate a bit tiresome.  To my friends on the ID side: no, there is no disagreement among scientists about whether evolution is a reality.  Evolution is central to both biology and geology.  To suggest otherwise is to engage in dishonesty.  And isn&#8217;t that a sin?</p>
<p>I would remind Dawkins that there are important questions beyond science.  Religion and philosophy are  efforts to get those answers.</p>
<p>A couple of years ago I wrote a post entitled &#8220;<a href="https://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000473.html" rel="nofollow">The Miracle</a>.&#8221;</p>
<p>The miracle I was talking about is the miracle of existence.  It seems to me that we often miss how remarkable existence is. Wouldn&#8217;t <i>nothing</i> have been easier?  </p>
<p>Wonder and awe is appropriate.</p>
<p>The Mr. Magorium movie has a perfect line: </p>
<p>&#8220;Your Life Is An Occasion, Rise To It!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
