Mark Souder: Intelligent Design, Purpose, Fall

I personally believe that there is no issue more important to our society than intelligent design. I believe that if there wasn't a purpose in designing you - regardless of who you view the designer as being - then, from my perspective, you can't be fallen from that design. If you can't be fallen from that design, there's no point to evangelism.
As an evangelical Christian, I believe the premise of a fall being at the core of reforming lives. I believe the concept of grace and forgiveness comes from having fallen from something.

- Mark Souder


Part 1: "Purpose"
"I believe that if there wasn't a purpose in designing you - regardless of who you view the designer as being - then, from my perspective, you can't be fallen from that design."
Translation:
If there was not a purpose in designing X then X cannot be fallen from that design.

Let's say I design a coffee pot. By Mark Souder's logic there cannot be a fallen coffee pot from that design unless there was purpose in designing the coffee pot. This raises the question of what a "fallen coffee pot" would be.


Part 2: "Fallen"
"I believe the premise of a fall being at the core of reforming lives. I believe the concept of grace and forgiveness comes from having fallen from something."

"Fallen" is a concept derived from a notion of having fallen from something. One might infer that fallen denotes a "higher" state of being from which one might have fallen. So, presumably, there was a "higher" state from which the coffee pot "fell". But what the fuck does this mean?


Part 3: What the fuck is wrong with Mark Souder?

If there was not a purpose in designing X then X cannot be fallen from that design.

To "fall" one must fail to meet some expectation. The problem, I think, is that Mark Souder confuses "purpose" and "design". A "fallen" state may exist with regard to both "purpose" and "design". With regard to a coffee pot there is both a "design" and a "purpose"; "design" and "purpose" are two separate and distinct things.

Mark Souder is fundamentally incorrect. X may certainly "fall" from a design, fail to meet a design, regardless of the "purpose" for X. "Design" and "purpose" are not interchangeable terms. Purpose and Design are seperate and distinct. "Design" regards a manner of formulation, a structure, an organization. "Purpose" is "intent". One may design with regard to an intended purpose (purpose as "holding coffee"), but the purpose for which a coffee pot is made is sepereate and distinct from the design (the physical structure and formulation) of a particular coffee pot.

So, "if there was not a purpose in designing X then X cannot be fallen from that design" is nonsense.

And Mark Souder can go fuck himself with a shit-encrusted crucifix which has previously been used to bash the skulls of third-trimester fetuses.