Redwenur,

You have jumped on the particular and you are right - I used a definition to suit me, but only because it illustrates my point - no dishonesty intended. I was, however, pointing to the general use of these types of words.

Evolutionists (for the record, I am one) cannot help but talk in terms of 'purpose' no matter how much they try.

Einstein talked of 'God not playing dice' - it has to be asked (as the philosopher Mary Midgley rightly does), why would such a great man find the need to use such words to describe a purely material phenomena? He would not have uttered them without choosing them carefully and would have been well aware of their connotations.

I concede that it is overall a weak point but it does interest me. We cannot describe objective existence without these words with their subjective overtones.

1. If we knocked over some tins of paint and it accidently formed a beautiful painting then we might be surprised.

2. When we look at a painting by one of the great masters we are awed and moved emotionally. This is more akin to the religious experience of worshipping the designer behind the design.

When we look at the universe we experience number 2. We think in hyperbolic terms.



As for the professors you mention - of course they would state in the strongest terms that there is no evidence of design. This is partially because of the war of paradigms. Why would they allow an inch of ground to be offered to the religious who would be all over it like a rash? But I do not see how they can objectify this yet. Can they really objectively rule out design behind the makeup of the universe?

How?

Anyway, that was not my point and I am not looking for a democratic vote on the subject - one side wins because it has more believers and therefore Anthony Flew is irrational by democratic decree.

Ellis asked - "What is rational about believing that some one or some thing did it all?"

I pointed to two rational Professors and could list many more, who either belive that there is design in the universe (and it therefore follows 'a designer'), or just accept that it looks very much like it could be the case.

I could list many many more.

I submit that it is clearly not irrational to believe in a designer.

Blacknad.