[metmom]

Please note that God does not DESIGN the grass.

Sure He would have. You don't know that He didn't design the grass and program it to operate in a certain way, as is true with the rest of creation.

If you design something with certain properties, like the water molecule, then it's going to behave in a certain way under certain conditions; like becoming less dense when turning into a solid, and forming hexagonal lattices to form snowflakes.

So in a sense, it is not necessary for God to create each and every individual snowflake, but the design allows for a tremendous latitude for variety within that framework. The water molecules are working the way they were designed to, which in no way demonstrates that God is not needed nor that God didn't design it.

Isn’t this fatal to “intelligent design”, from a literalistic point of view?

No. How would it bring it forth if it wasn't designed into it in the first place? Isn't it obvious enough to the reader that it happened without stating it? Would it have made any difference to evos if the Bible had said that God designed the earth to produce vegetation? They don't want to take the Genesis account literally, and so if it specifically said that God designed the system to behave in certain ways, many would still get around that by declaring it allegorical.

[Agamemnon]

Dr_lew suffers from too small a view of the Creator.

Lew probably has the view of God the Creator as just some kindly, occasionally rapascious little old man that sits around all day doing the equivalent of piecing together toothpick models.

Jesus Christ designed, created and redeemed His universe. And dr_lew is so certain that the creator didn't design grass, why? Because there were no tooth picks with instructions printed for them -- such as dr_lew might think he'd need to design grass?

dr_lew must believe he designed himself. Since he's so intelligent, perhaps he can tell us how he did it.

[CottShop]

A we al discussed in another thread- even grass has levels of complexity that NEED a metainformaiton level to organize the lower complexities to keep the ‘species’ fit and viable- these levels, as well as the metainformaiton level can not ‘spring forth’ from simple chemicals in a by guess by gosh manner, and the highest level of metainformation present screams that it was designed that way. There is no bank of informaiton found in nature to draw from that even begins to approach the level of complexity found in metainformaiton, and the very fact that metainformation is designed to anticipate, and deal accordingly with, change, shows a level of sophistication far exceeding anythign simpel mutaitons could cobble together from chemical origins

Macroevolution- Creation of the highest order and highest design complexity- without hte need for a designer apparently- (of course they have no answer for metainformation and hte NEED for a designer, they just assume that copying mistakes self-assembled themselves intelligently and resulted in irreducible complexity at ‘some point in the past’, and which completely stopped at ‘some point in the past’ since there is now no evidence self-assembly could produce such complexity)

[CottShop]

[[So in a sense, it is not necessary for God to create each and every individual snowflake, but the design allows for a tremendous latitude for variety within that framework. The water molecules are working the way they were designed to, which in no way demonstrates that God is not needed nor that God didn’t design it.]]

That’s a favorite retread argument for macroevolutionists- claimign static assemblies which follow basic geometric rules somehow equates to dynamic living systems- if simple chemicals can assemble themselves into simple basic geometric patterns, then the macroevolutionist thinks highly complex living systems could somehow pull off hte biologically impossible, and do the same- this isn’t true of course, as there are far more complex variables found in dynamic biological systems than are found in static non living chemical assemblies- it’s an argument from similarity, which when examined closely and indepth, falls apart at hte seams

[UCANSEE2]

If you design something with certain properties, like the water molecule, then it's going to behave in a certain way under certain conditions; like becoming less dense when turning into a solid, and forming hexagonal lattices to form snowflakes.

So in a sense, it is not necessary for God to create each and every individual snowflake, but the design allows for a tremendous latitude for variety within that framework. The water molecules are working the way they were designed to, which in no way demonstrates that God is not needed nor that God didn't design it.

----------------

Thank you for the excellent analogy.