The Unsolved Murder

_{March 11, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a private forum a question was recently posed:

At what point the police should stop investigating an unsolved murder and close the case, declaring that God must have simply wanted the victim dead? It is the same point at which it is appropriate to tell scientists to stop looking for explanations and simply conclude “God did it”.

My reply

Dear XXXX,

Well, in practice they stop investigating when the evidence goes cold (the trail of evidence stops in an inconclusive state).

In the investigation into the origin and diversification of life the trail of evidence hasn’t gone cold. The trail begins with ancient scientist/philosophers looking at macroscopic features of life like the camera eye and saying it looks like it was designed. Opposing this was the assertion that the appearance of design is an illusion. Bringing us up to the current day the illusion of design hasn’t gone away. No matter how much further detail (evidence) we get the illusion of design persists. At the molecular level the illusion of design is even stronger than at the macroscopic level. Darwin’s simple blobs of protoplasm was emphatically wrong. What we see in the finest level of detail is even more complex machinery than a camera eye, increasingly more difficult to explain as an accident of law and chance.

A more salient question about murder investigations is when do the police, when they have a dead body with a knife in its back, throw up their hands and declare it an accident? The answer is they don’t. Unlike evolutionists, when police are confronted with an “illusion of design” that doesn’t go away in light of all the available evidence they continue calling it a murder (death by design) with an appended qualifier – unsolved murder. Too bad evolutionists aren’t more like police investigators and less like story tellers with delusions of grandeur.

Comments?

Addendum 3/13/08: Assistant Professor of Religion James McGrath feels that criticisms of my response are being censored. To put that mistaken notion to rest here is a link to his response and an invitation to participate directly here if he so desires so long as he follows our rules of decorum found on the side panel under moderation rules.

Comments

Dave, TOC et al: Interesting thread. I think several remarks are so good they deserve scooping out and threading together. 1: I find SteveB -- as usual -- especially significant:
The issue is the integrity of the methodology. Just as we ought not to posit a design until we rule out law/chance, we ought not to posit murder until we rule out accident. On the other hand, once we have ruled out accident, it is illogical NOT to consider murder. Similarly, once we have ruled out law and chance, it is illogical NOT to consider design. Thus, the private questioner is misusing the analogy. He confuses the task of establishing whether a murder took place, which is analogous to a design inference, with the task of finding the murderer, which is not. So, his attempt to slam ID with a false application of the process is confused and illogical.
2: Eric B -- again, as usual -- at 17 is also telling:
We might generously allow that perhaps there might be a way to accidentally fall backward into a misplaced knife. But when symbolic information is involved, who created the note? Symbolic information does not appear by accident. Yet the just-an-accident detectives get by on blind faith and promises, rather than evidence. StephenB (10) is right. If undirected causes provide an adequate explanation, they legitimately take precedence. But if not, we infer directed causes. Especially with science, we infer directed causes (i.e. intelligent agency), not because we know who the murderer is, but because the effect is outside the plausible reach of undirected causes. When blind undirected law and chance strike out, it is reasonable to conclude that something more than blind undirected law and chance is involved, i.e. intelligent agency.
3: Paul Giem raises a troubling issue -- objectionaism based on closed mindedness [aka being dishonestly in error]:
this is unlikely to be helpful as long as, to continue the analogy, the police are unwilling to implicate the president of the country, and know that any murder will eventually be traced to her. Some will deny that she did it (or even that she exists). Some will say that she did it, but only indirectly and in such a way that one can never prove it, or even find any evidence of it. ID asserts that what we have here is in fact murder and that there is very strong evidence to back that claim. Theists will say that not only is it murder, but it is consistent with her modus operandi and there is no reason to involve intermediaries without evidence. The problem for some may be that they don’t know enough about the case, but for others, they know plenty about the case, and just don’t want to acknowledge design because of where it will lead . . . . If Dawkins says what has been reported, and I have no reason to doubt it, he has given away the store. To admit that after all these years of protest, design really is a viable option as long as it doesn’t involve God, is to admit that one has engaged in a massive spin campaign with the purpose of making science anti-God.
Some very sobering thoughts indeed. GEM of TKI PS: I think some remarks I put up yesterday at no 204 in the Alternberg 16 thread may also be relevant:
Science is indeed in large part about inference to best current explanation, and retroductive, unifying explanation of diverse phenomena is as important and often at least as powerful as prediction. Some would indeed argue that prediction is a subset of such empirical explanation, i.e providing a unifying construct that points to as yet non-instantiated empirical data. That is, the logic in basic form has structure, where T – theory, O – observation of fact, P – prediction of not yet observed fact: T –> {O1, O2, . . . On} AND {P1, P2, . . . Pm}, where the marker between O’s and P’s is set temporally and sometimes financially . . . . However, there is a further factor, as — as GP hints at — domains in science interact. Namely, there are also points where theories have bridges (B) to other domains in science and associated bodies of accepted theory. Thus, we extend the basic model: T –> {O1, O2, . . . On} AND {P1, P2, . . . Pm} AND {B1, B2, . . . Bk} The classic current case in point would be quantum physics which unifies across a very large cluster of domains across several entire fields of science and associated technologies, brilliantly. Never mind its own gaping inner challenges. Now, too, let us observe: when a bridge to another established domain in science opens up, all at once there is the major potential for cross-checks across entire domains. Thus, the opening of a bridge is fraught with potential for confirmation and disconfirmation, as all at once whole new domains of fact and associated theories are exposed to mutual cross-examination. If there is mutual coherence and support, then it lends our confidence in the underlying constructs in both domains a greatly enhanced weight of credence. [For instance, think here on the import of key bridging concepts such as atoms, energy, particles such as electrons, the wave concept, and now information.] But, on the other hand, where there is incoherence, we then have to look at the weights of the relevant alternative explanations and come to conclusions on where the changes need to be made. That is a major reason why I take the design inference seriously, as the progress of molecular scale biology over the past 60 or so years has revealed elements of a complex, in part digitally based information system at the core of cell based life. Onward, that bridges to an even more established domain of science, thermodynamics. One may deny the bridges but they plainly are there and it boils down to this: the current dominant chance + necessity only paradigm in biology is deeply challenged to account coherently for the information systems and content at the core of cell based life. Now, there is an alternative paradigm, design, that can. But it is controversial as it cuts across major worldview level commitments of many leading practitioners in the sciences. So, we now see a major political dust-up taking place, across entire domains of science and also in the education system and wider culture, where key dominant elites have embedded in key elements of the evolutionary materialist paradigm in their worldviews and life/culture agendas.
That's my thought on the matter. The note on the knife is decisive, as it bridges to other domains of science with long since established concepts, evidence and theories. Long term, the traffic flowing into biology across that bridge will be decisive, but in the meanwhile the plain implication of the note, i.e. agent action, will be the subject of a major dust-up. Back where I come from there is a proverb: fling stone inna hog pen a de one it lick bawl out! Some pigs are squealing real loud, don't you think?kairosfocus_{March 12, 2008
March
03
Mar
12
12
2008
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

ericB - I agree that "you can only go so far [with] a scientific proposition," and, like you, "I am not bothered by the fact that science cannot take us as far as we should consider going." I never expected to find God in an equation or a test tube. But I am bothered by the notion, so strongly implicit on this very forum, that we either can't or shouldn't -- and certainly have no explicit duty to -- go further until we find a way for "science" to take us there. I propose the opposite. I say: 1. We should begin with the notion that Theology -- the Study of God and His works -- is the proper subject of man's investigative abilities, and simply declare our intent to pursue that end using all the other -ologies and lesser sciences as our means. 2. We should stop wasting time, energy, and other valuable resources attempting to convince blind reprobates that there really is design in the universe, and we can see it. Let the dead bury the dead. 3. We should get on with practical research and development projects that will result in useful inventions that bring glory to God and benefit to our fellow men. Theory without practice is rubbish.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

And how do we know it wasn't a heart attack?Nochange_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

Gerry quotes Einstein,
“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
I like that quote as well, though from what I gather William Dembski looks at the world as certainly from one true divine creation but with both random natural forces as well as specified complexity requiring intelligence. Dembski often describes a world that is both miraculous and random. I take the view that Dembski is partly correct in that there is a difference between the beauty and complexity of a healthy human being vs. a mud puddle on the ground but I don’t go all the way with it. I see a difference between the specified complex design inherent in Mt. Rushmore vs. a regular old mountain side, but, I think that even the randomness in nature has a divine purpose and hence is in some deep religious sense miraculous as well. Even evil which man commits by choice, can be brought back to the conception of its origins through the theological supposition that God created choice and hence everything that flows from this is in some sense miraculous as well. At the heart of this kind of a philosophical/theological debate is the dichotomy between nature vs. miracle or the natural explanations of the world vs. having to fill the gaps with a miraculous God or designer. What is the difference anyway? Darwinists would have us believe the second is nothing but either stochastic fluke or simply does not exist at all. Religion says, on the other hand, that all things are within the common existence of God's creation which has in it the possibility and occasional occurrence of divine interaction- whereby something that is highly improbable or impossible happens out of the good Lord's mysterious benevolence. But there is middle ground where the two sides can meet and be weighed against each other. Impossibility cannot be touched by science because it is by definition not rationally reconcilable except to say that it has no explanation. Science however is about explanation and understanding of nature. Thankful for science miracles of the impossible variety are very rare. Now the point I want to make is that improbable miracles are not outside of science and or nature. Natural explanation can deal with improbability. I certainly agree with the linguistic interpretation of the appearance of miraculous events in an otherwise lawful predictable reality but given Behe's calculations concerning the improbability of life arising the idea of improbable miracles is very much real and common and reconcilable with science. The impossible, is to me, limited to things which are "conceptually limited", contradictory or just plain incomprehensible. For example the idea of "God dieing" or "something being both totaly good and evil at the same time." This kind of mind bending or incomprehensible miracle I leave for religion, theodicy or metaphysics to deal with and agree that to the best of my current understanding it has no place in science or natural explanation. The first category regarding improbability pertains to all physical or natural events. Since science tells us that “life is improbable” and yet it is all around us, I am apt to fall into the category that “everything is part of a miracle” (or there about) and simply some things are more improbable and or wonderful/good to man than others. Where probability separates normality from miracle the difference is measured only in degrees, and it is here in this interpretation of the miraculous that all things natural and scientifically related share a common denominator. Therefore, the scientific study and proof of Intelligent Design is ultimately about showing improbability, the need for purposive premeditation, design instructions and the intelligent interactions of various parts conceived through nature. ID is about inferring “natural intellectual necessity”. It is not about proving that something impossible happened or something “unnatural” happened- or even for that matter that something miraculous happened since science has already shown that the miraculous is all around us. Darwinists have sort of stolen the word "natural" from the religious- (religious as in those who see design or purpose in nature), and tried to use it against ID in a preloaded debate- but we need not believe that Design amy fall outside of the realm of nature and the reach of science. In fact, in a broad and satisfying sense, nature is the very product of miracles and design.Frost122585_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

To Gerry Rzeppa, great Einstein quote. It is good from a personal standpoint to be prepared to go beyond a lukewarm wishy-wash. That said, I think the point regarding the scientific question is that you can only go so far in a scientific proposition as your evidence can take you. That may bring us to an inference to intelligence, and for some forms of cosmological ID even to an intelligence that is outside the universe. But it will never go as far as we can go when we use additional information outside of science. That is why Antony Flew is now an ex-atheist, but still more a deist than a theist. Science only goes so far. So, I am not bothered by the fact that science cannot take us as far as we should consider going. Everything science studies has limitations, and science itself does as well.ericB_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

Paul Giem, et al - It seems to me that there's a continuum of opinion regarding God in this debate. Atheists want Him gone altogether. Next to them are the folks who want Him involved only at the very beginning. Following them we have those who want God only at major breakpoints. Farther along, we find folks who only want Him on Sundays, and next to them, people who are willing to give up Wednesday evenings as well. Finally, at the far end of the scale we've got those who see His mighty hand not only creating, but redeeming, and sustaining, all things at all times. Personally, I think the middle positions are all lukewarm wishy-wash. Einstein got it right when he said, "There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."Gerry Rzeppa_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

DaveScot,, I agree with many others that your reframing of the question was quite appropriate. One could even meet the objector on his/her own ground and ask, following ericB, when do the police finding a body with a knife it its back draw the conclusion that the death was not an accident but rather was designed? It is the appropriate question. But this is unlikely to be helpful as long as, to continue the analogy, the police are unwilling to implicate the president of the country, and know that any murder will eventually be traced to her. Some will deny that she did it (or even that she exists). Some will say that she did it, but only indirectly and in such a way that one can never prove it, or even find any evidence of it. ID asserts that what we have here is in fact murder and that there is very strong evidence to back that claim. Theists will say that not only is it murder, but it is consistent with her modus operandi and there is no reason to involve intermediaries without evidence. The problem for some may be that they don't know enough about the case, but for others, they know plenty about the case, and just don't want to acknowledge design because of where it will lead. I am looking forward to seeing Expelled. If Dawkins says what has been reported, and I have no reason to doubt it, he has given away the store. To admit that after all these years of protest, design really is a viable option as long as it doesn't involve God, is to admit that one has engaged in a massive spin campaign with the purpose of making science anti-God. About the only more damaging thing he could say was that space alien theory was a better explanation than unguided processes. But ID theists are not going to get anywhere until we pull ourselves together and stop running whenever we hear "God of the gaps". The reason why is philosophically simple. Any entity is detected because of its effects in nature. For example, I know that the computer I am typing on is there because it covers up the rug it is sitting on, and because my fingers strike plastic instead of continuing on to the soft carpet below, and because when I hit the plastic, my visual field registers letters. This is true for any object in nature. If there are no effects, the object theoretically could be there, but it is undetectable, and for practical purposes it might as well not be there. If one cannot detect God in any way, He might as well not be there either. And that is the end point that fear of using a "God of the gaps" argument leads us. Theists might as well come out and face that argument head-on. That does not mean that we should not carefully choose where we will face it. But if we never face it, we leave the field to the atheists and to those timid souls that wouldn't think of disagreeing with them about any of the empirical facts of life.Paul Giem_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

I'd like to know why the It-was-just-an-accident detectives continue to get a free pass, despite the discovery decades ago that the knife also pins a revenge note to the victum's back. We might generously allow that perhaps there might be a way to accidentally fall backward into a misplaced knife. But when symbolic information is involved, who created the note? Symbolic information does not appear by accident. Yet the just-an-accident detectives get by on blind faith and promises, rather than evidence. StephenB (10) is right. If undirected causes provide an adequate explanation, they legitimately take precedence. But if not, we infer directed causes. Especially with science, we infer directed causes (i.e. intelligent agency), not because we know who the murderer is, but because the effect is outside the plausible reach of undirected causes. When blind undirected law and chance strike out, it is reasonable to conclude that something more than blind undirected law and chance is involved, i.e. intelligent agency. It is past time for the ideological free pass for "just-an-accident" to expire. Blind faith and promises are not science.ericB_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

A more salient question about murder investigations is when do the police, when they have a dead body with a knife in its back, throw up their hands and declare it an accident Well said, Dave! Considering the number of people who die everyday and considering the overwhelming number of them are not murder victim, a design inference is required to start the investigation. Actually, you can say it was a design inference -- that the natural world had a design (by God) and followed laws --that started the field of science.tribune7_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

I agree that Dave's response was appropriate and decisively well put. And I agree with most of the comments above. But... Perhaps it's time for us to leave the gainsayers to God and spend more of our resouces (1) taking advantage of our design-oriented framwork in actual research and development projects, and (2) giving credit (or "glory", as it used to be called) to God for the unfathomable delicacy and beauty and power of his handiwork. Instead of pretending that we're not yet really quite sure that He exists... Maybe, just maybe, if we spent more time growing and less time arguing about rainbows with the blind; and maybe, just maybe, if we gave God more of His rightful due, He'd be willing to give us an insight or two that would, like the early Church, "turn the world upside down". Which, starting from where we are, would produce a rightside-up result.Gerry Rzeppa_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

The Darwinian questioner's on shaky ground right from the start, talking about investigating murder. The wrongness of murder comes from a set of moral standards and absolute laws of acceptable behavior and value of life. Not the kind of thing evolutionists believe in.Reg_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

To the Darwinist, every murder is, in fact, an accident, because deliberate, intelligent design is itself both the accumulation of chance sequences, and an ongoing series of chance sequence. That such chemical sequences made someone put a knife in someone's back would simply be another natural occurrence - to them. To the Darwinist,humans don't have intelligent design; their behavior is just like a snowflake pattern - the outcome of chemical behaviors as materials interact under physical laws. One wonders why the Darwinist so virulently denies intelligent design, when in their lexicon intelligent design is no more, and no less, than the patterning of snowflakes. They might as well be railing that crystallization doesn't really occur, and that if we assume crystallization can occur where we haven't seen it before, then scientific progress will come to a screeching halt. It's all very amusing to watch them squirm because of how their ideology forces them to react to certain words.William J. Murray_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

At the risk of further swelling your head Dave, I must say your reply was brilliant. :)
scientists ... stop looking for explanations and simply conclude “God did it.
But why, oh why, does this old canard continue to sprout from the tongues and keyboards of evolutionists as if they thought they had cleverly scored a point? Can someone please enlighten me? I honestly cannot understand how anyone could conceive in the slightest way that belief in an intelligent designer would lessen in any way the curiosity of an intelligent investigator. I spend my days (when I am not lurking on UD) working with objects and systems that were incontrovertibly designed, yet my knowledge of that fact does not in any way lessen my desire to understand more. Quite the opposite in fact. And if my small understanding of the history and philosophy of science is correct, wasn't it precisely because early scientists believed in a designer that they believed that there must be a logical design behind natural events that could be discovered and comprehended – "thinking God's thoughts after him"?sagebrush gardener_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

p.noyola: "If investigators didn’t have knowledge of the basics of human behaviour and motivation (let alone this theoretical human’s ability to slip in and out of a supernatural realm, reverse time, duplicate themselves, walk through walls, etc.) they wouldn’t be able to make certain assumptions (i.e. profiling would go right out the window)." I understand your point, but honestly, this kind of up-in-your-head obfuscation that I get in every discussdion I have with neo-Darwinists. The guy has a knife in his back (for crying out loud) lets just start there... Perhaps you were being sarcastic.Upright BiPed_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

It is not really interesting to dwell on the end point of inquiry. Darwinian evolutionists constantly do everything in their power to kill inquiry- not into issues of common descent and self organization of course- but they try to kill real inquiry- that is the introduction of new questions. Often times scientific discovery begins with new questions NOT new discoveries. Einstein's theory of relativity is a case in point. Einstein wanted to know why Maxwell's and Newton's theories contradicted each other regarding the addition and subtraction of velocities approaching the speed of light. This opened up a whole new way of approaching physics and eventually answered questions about gravity light time and the nature of the physical world itself. The point is that just because a question is left unanswered doesn’t mean there is not an answer to it. It is never too late to open up an old case as happens occasionally when new evidence reopens a closed murder case. Science is a noun, despite what the Darwinists say- but within that now is the idea of study and testing- Science cannot begin or end but it does become superfluous when there is little of no way of addressing the subject of inquiry. So its never time to permanently close the case. The amount of time effort attention and money that people put into a given question or problem has to do with three things only--- 1. How manageable is the problem?(how much data or evidnece is available) 2. How important is the problem? (cancer research etc) 3. How much does a given group or individual WANT to continue investigating the subject of inquiry. (physics as a hobby?) The third is the blessing of living in a free society.Frost122585_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

The issue is the integrity of the methodology. Just as we ought not to posit a design until we rule out law/chance, we ought not to posit murder until we rule out accident. On the other hand, once we have ruled out accident, it is illogical NOT to consider murder. Similarly, once we have ruled out law and chance, it is illogical NOT to consider design. Thus, the private questioner is misusing the analogy. He confuses the task of establishing whether a murder took place, which is analogous to a design inference, with the task of finding the murderer, which is not. So, his attempt to slam ID with a false application of the process is confused and illogical. Nevertheless, he believes himself to be quite clever and he appears quite proud of his fantasy accomplishment. Thus, he exhibits what is known as “triumphant stupidity.” That is why Dave, who is actually capable of logic, had to rework the analogy.StephenB_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

I find this question intriguing, very loaded, but intriguing. The real question is, at what point should the police throw their hands in the air and declare a murder to be "unsolvable"? At what point should the OOL boys give up and say, "we have no explanation for the origin of life."? This is a fully correct answer in a science that strictly holds to methodological naturalism, but not to philosophical naturalism. The current fantacy that "we don't yet have an explanation for the origin of life, but we will soon!"is philosophical naturalism, a religion, pure and simple.bFast_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Isn't this a bit gruesome for the site?PannenbergOmega_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

"It is the same point at which it is appropriate to tell scientists to stop looking for explanations and simply conclude “God did it”." Ummm, I thought that ID is an explanation. The premise here is that ID is some sort of a cop out, and if we choose it we are somehow undercutting science and inquiry. Quite the opposite, ID should get us all jazzed to inquire more, learn more, search more, etc. Not to mention that we can now get serious about mining nature for all sorts of technological and design treasures. And, to add the cherry on top, now we can view nature as the beautiful artwork that it is. The best the Materialist can do is permit himself or herself to try and enjoy an attribute of nature that does not really exist. Beethoven -- creative genius or clump of purposeless molecules? Take your pick!!Ekstasis_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

The issue has less to do with God and more to do with how things came about. The question is where and when things happened and for what reasons things take place. Also, what is the proper interpretation as of the process as a whole? Intelligent Design is the proper interpretation. We are ultimately sorting out answers to the set of all operative questions- which can be understood through the word "WHY." Why did this happen- why didn't it happen another why- why is life organized and specifically complex? Why, does such and such happen? Intelligent design answers the biggest “why” question that exists regarding origins science; "Why does nature appear designed?" Because it is.Frost122585_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

"At what point the police should stop investigating an unsolved murder and close the case, declaring that God must have simply wanted the victim dead? " The investigation closes when the District Attorney mandates that unless the prime suspect is a ( name your favorite socio-ethnic group ) person we will not prosecute the case. I would imagine that evolutionary biologists find themselves in similar circumstances.toc_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

But don't investigators usually start with making assumptions about the typical human designer/murderer? In a case of knife-in-the-back, wouldn't they ask (alongside "could it be an accident") things like: "who has a motive to kill"; "who is known to this person that doesn't have an alibi"; "which known criminals operate here", etc.? If investigators didn't have knowledge of the basics of human behaviour and motivation (let alone this theoretical human's ability to slip in and out of a supernatural realm, reverse time, duplicate themselves, walk through walls, etc.) they wouldn't be able to make certain assumptions (i.e. profiling would go right out the window). I ramble, but the real point is the cops know something about the designer in general to assume a designer was involved. Not really apples to apples, I'm afraid.p.noyola_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

What a horrendous analogy. Why should the police care it all if it's just "natural selection, hard at work"?Berceuse_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

A more salient question about murder investigations is when do the police, when they have a dead body with a knife in its back, throw up their hands and declare it an accident? Touche'. That is hilarious.
Jehu_{March 11, 2008
March
03
Mar
11
11
2008
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply