| >But if you are claiming there is some fundamental upper bound to our understanding, and that a complete functional understanding of the human body is beyond that upper bound I'm claiming the first conjunct. I don't know whether or not a complete functional understanding of the human body is beyond our understanding. I don't see why a claim that our understanding has certain fundamental limits should need to be justified. Rather, the opposite claim seems to require justification. If you look at any other animal on earth, this is obvious. Why should we be the only animal without limits? This is not to suggest that what we happen to know right now is the upper limit, just that there is an upper limit. >not claiming you support [intelligent design], and really not trying to open that can of worms Oh please, this issue has nothing at all to do with ID. > it follows naturally that it must have supernatural origins. Or, more plausibly, that it has natural origins which are too complex for us to understand. |