Beavers have been known to build very large dams.[2] The largest known was discovered near Three Forks, Montana, and was 2,140 feet long, 14 feet high, and 23 feet thick at the base.

Now such a dam is what I call ID!

I believe animals are intelligent. More impressive than chimp spears are beavers manufacturing dams, imho.

Animals are human-like by design. Many have emotions and thoughts and memories and hopes and fears. Many are, as far as I can tell, intelligent. That is not by accident, but was ordained from the beginnning.

The concept of a lamb (both its life and its death) was foundation of the world, it was no accident.

Therefore, in the scheme of things, chimps with spears does not diminish ID. It does pose difficult questions about animal intelligence. Are beaver dams the product of ID?

Happy Easter.

Sal

Do you think this story http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci…..387611.stm
of Chimps being able to create spears in hunt does anything to diminish the argument for Intelligent Design?

See: Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science

Why doesn’t God grant Adam and Eve immortality despite the Fall?
….
A final question now remains: How did the first humans gain entry to
the Garden? There are two basic options: progressive creation and
evolving creation. In the first, God creates the first humans in the
Garden. In the second, the first humans evolve from primate ancestors
outside the Garden and then are brought into the Garden. Both views
require direct divine action. In the former, God specially creates the first humans from scratch. In the latter, God introduces existing human-like beings from outside the Garden but then transforms their consciousness so that they become rational moral agents made in God’s image.

Actually this is the article.

bFast
01/15/2007
8:38 pm

The “common design”ers. (I believe Dembski holds to this view.) These guys suggest that one day the designer started with a previous work, and reworked a new species — humans. In this view there was clearly a first human pair — Adam & Eve.

Please write back.

I would call myself an empiricist; demonstrable evidence is all that really interests me, although I do like the odd good logical argument and bashing orthodox darwinism whenever I get the chance – if only because it’s made itself such an irresistible target. As an empiricist I would opt for the typological perception of nature, as it doesn’t extend itself beyond available evidence into realms of faith.

Dr. Dembski has written a lot of stuff. He has his own website where a lot of this is published. I am sure he talks about some of his beliefs there so go to the horse’s mouth. I found the two Dover things very illuminating.

The link is above but is

http://www.designinference.com/