This might help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
On 10/27/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Prof. Behe's claims have been conclusively disproved many times. Here > is a summary of just some of the disproofs: > > http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html > > which concludes as follows: > > "Paley's 21st century followers claim that the intelligent design > movement is based upon new discoveries in molecular biology, and > represents a novel scientific movement that is worthy of scientific > and educational attention. Couched in the modern language of > biochemistry, Behe's formulation of Paley represents the best hopes of > the movement establish its views as scientifically legitimate. As we > have seen in this brief review, however, it is remarkably easy to > answer each of his principal claims. > > This analysis shows that the "evidence" used by modern advocates of > intelligent design to resurrect Paley's early 19th century arguments > is neither novel nor new. Indeed, their only remaining claim against > Darwin is that they cannot imagine how evolution might have produced > such systems. Time and time again, other scientists, unpersuaded by > such self-serving pessimism, have shown (and published) explanations > to the contrary. When closely examined, even the particular molecular > machines employed by the movement as examples of "irreducible > complexity" turn out to be incorrect. Finally, the logic of the > argument itself turns out to have an obvious and fatal flaw. > > Prof. Behe argues that anti-religious bias is the reason the > scientific community resists the explanation of design for his > observations: > > "Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling > discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual > gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled > intelligent design, the other side might be labeled God." (Behe 1966a: > 232) > > I would suggest that the actual reason is much simpler. The scientific > community has not embraced the explanation of design because it is > quite clear, on the basis of the evidence, that it is wrong. > ==================== > > > Time to build a better mousetrap! > > Cheers, > Bob > > > I know the following is not speaking of the inanimate world of the > > snowflake, however it speaks to how we can reach conclusions, > > and the role > > 'science at large' is or is not playing. > > > > ------------------ > > > > An interview was done recently with Biochemist, Michael Behe, > > now Professor > > of Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, U.S.A. > > He is also > > author of the book Darwins Black Box The Biochemical Challenge. > > > > Q: Why do you feel that life provides evidence of intelligent > design? > > > > A: We infer design whenever we see complex functional > > arrangements. Take for > > instance the machines that we use every day a lawn mower, a > > car, or even > > simpler things. An example I like to use is a mousetrap. You > > conclude that > > it is designed because you see different parts arranged to > > perform the > > function of catching a mouse. > > > > Science has now advanced enough to have uncovered the > > foundation level of > > life. And much to our surprise, scientists have found > > functional, complex > > machinery at the molecular level of life. For instance, > > within living cells > > there are little molecular trucks that carry supplies from > > one side of the > > cell to the other. There are tiny molecular sign posts > > that tell these > > trucks to turn left or right. Some cells have molecular > > outboard motors > > that propel the cells through liquid. In any other context, when > such > > functional complexity is evident, people would conclude that > > these things > > have been designed. We have no other explanation for this > > complexity, claims > > of Darwinian evolution not withstanding. Since its been our uniform > > > experience that this sort of arrangement bespeaks design, we > > are justified > > in thinking that these molecular systems were also > > intelligently designed. > > > > > > Q: Why in your opinion do the majority of your colleagues > > disagree with your > > conclusions regarding intelligent design? > > > > A: Many scientists disagree with my conclusions because they > > see that the > > idea of intelligent design has extrascientific implications > > that it seems > > to point strongly beyond nature. This conclusion makes many > > people nervous. > > However I was always taught that science is supposed to follow the > > > evidence wherever it leads. In my view, it is a failure of > > nerve to back > > away from something that is so strongly indicated by the > > evidence simply > > because you think the conclusion has unwelcome philosophical > > implications. > > > > > > Q: How do you respond to critics who claim that accepting the idea > of > > intelligent design promotes ignorance? > > > > A: The conclusion of design is not due to ignorance. Its > > not due to what > > we dont know; its due to what we do know. When Darwin > > published his book > > The origin of the Species 150 years ago, life seemed > > simple. Scientists > > thought that the cell was so simple that it might just > > spontaneously bubble > > up from the sea mud. But since then, science has discovered > > that cells are > > enormously complex, much more complex than the machinery of > > our 21st-century > > world. That functional complexity bespeaks purposeful design. > > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > It's not my intent to belabor this point on a photography > > list (as we of > > course have done in the past) > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
