Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "inativo" —a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Reative o tópico publicando uma resposta.
As far as the basic "design" for Astyanax mexicanus, creationists (or IDers) would argue that the blind fish had to be designed to be blind; after all, other fish have functional eyes. But there is no way in creationism/ID theory to rationalize two fish "designed" to be blind all of a sudden giving birth to sighted fish. They are still cave fish, still "designed" to live in the dark, still "designed" to be blind, and still the same species.
One could, I suppose, argue that the design for these fish is somehow flawed. But then that flies in the face of the religious aspect of creationism/ID, whose supporters invariably believe in the Christian God (or something very similar), who is supposedly perfect and cannot produce a flawed design!
To reconcile the existence of this fish, creationists/IDers have to give up either their designer or their God!
I’m just playing devil’s advocate. I don’t think Intelligent Design Theory is even a theory. It simply states that life was designed. Unlike real science there is not much you can do with this. It makes no testable predictions, provides no mechanisms, and gives no explanations for anything. (I can’t imagine what ID researchers would spend their time doing accept for trying to poke holes in Darwinian evolution!)
I know that that is BS, but that is how they argue these days, since they have run out of all other arguments. (by the way I didn't read his book, I would never buy it, I don't want these people to make money off me. But I went to a talk of his, where we all gave him a real hard time, which was fun.)