(May 20, 2016 at 10:54 am)AAA Wrote:(May 20, 2016 at 9:22 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Not intelligently designed, and Dawkins carefully explained it gives the appearance of design, not actual design. There are problems of language when an insensate natural process results in features that look designed but the word implies intention when natural algorithms in play have no intention. To use that linguistic imprecision to generate an equivalency between 'design' as used by Dawkins and 'design' as used by the Discovery Institute is a Fallacy of Equivocation.
I never was trying to say Dawkins thought it was intelligently designed. Obviously he thinks it was designed by natural selection and mutation.
No... he doesn't think it was designed at all. And what kind of design doesn't require intelligence?
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.