Should not comment, but while some things in nature seem to be cleverly designed, others are so silly they defy the concept of intelligent design. Of course somehow those get overlooked by those who want their faith to be correct.
However, I have no doubt that there is a god because the history of my life proves he hates me <grin>. Of course that is the emotional response, intellectually, I can not conceive of why a god would care what happened with us; it would be like us worrying about ants that worshiped humans, ludicrous! The Christian God must be a lonely crazy old coot, so maybe that is why. At least the old gods had someone to talk to unlike this new guy. However, psychologically, I think god is the just adult version of the kids imaginary friend. --graywolf Bob W 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
