Posted on 03/16/2019 11:26:56 AM PDT by Simon Green
The notion of “intelligent design” arose after opponents of evolution repeatedly failed on First Amendment grounds to get Bible-based creationism taught in the public schools. Their solution: Take God out of the mix and replace him with an unspecified “intelligent designer.” They added some irrelevant mathematics and fancy biochemical jargon, and lo: intelligent design, which scientists have dubbed “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.”
But the tuxedo is fraying, for intelligent design has been rejected not just by biologists but also by judges who recognize it as poorly disguised religion. Nevertheless, its advocates persist. Among the most vocal is Michael J. Behe, a biology professor at Lehigh University whose previous books, despite withering criticism from scientists, have sold well in a country where 76 percent of us think God had some role in human evolution.
Behe does not rely on the Bible as a science textbook. Rather, he admits that evolution occurs by natural selection sifting new mutations and that all species are related via common ancestors. Where he parts company with other biologists is in his claim that the important mutations producing new types of organisms are not random accidents but are deliberately installed by a designer with a plan. A pious Catholic, Behe sees the designer as the Christian God but concedes that there could be other mutation-makers. These designed mutations solve what he sees as a problem for natural selection: the origin of some complex biochemical features. Such features appear to defy Darwinian explanation because, claims Behe, they can’t function until all the parts are in place. (Unguided natural selection requires that every step in the evolution of a complex feature must enhance an organism’s fitness.) Ergo, these “irreducibly complex” systems must have been forged by a designer who made simultaneous changes in several genes.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Considering how vast the universe is in terms of space and time, there have been/are/will be billions of life-supporting planets, so your glib derision is simply glib.
If no designer is mentioned in Intelligent Design, I don't think you are required to go with God/creationism. Didn't Fred Hoyle come out with his hypothesis of panspermia sometime in the mid-70's? (If my memory serves me well.)
Hoyle and his fellow researcher Chandra something (can't remember and can't spell it) said that life forms, or complex organic (carbon-bearing) molecules, coming into the earth's atmosphere from comets, asteroids, planetoids, whatever, would provide the genetic Leg-O's necessary for macroevolution, which requires myriads of innovations which can't be otherwise accounted for in a mere geologic ages.
Hoyle did not propose "God" but there certainly lurks an 'unknown x" since he does not propose any kind of formula for the initial abiogenesis, which he assumes happened, but thought so vanishingly rare that it would necessarily take place outside of a strictly terrestrial time-frame.
However, EVERY “science” book on Darwin/evolution uses “Nature selected” or “the body evolved this” to “do that” because “it was more efficient” “it was faster” “it needed to see better” “proto-whale (a bear-like creature) needed to lose its legs so it could swim faster” “it moved its nostrils up to breathe easier” ....
Yet there is NO “intelligent designer” allowed in their myth?
What is harder to believe? 37.2 trillion cells in 9 billion human bodies - all working together to live in near-perfect cooperation next to each other by 10^16 “natural random accidents”?
Or one miracle?
Notice that he does not indicate why intelligent design is an untrue theory, only that it has been rejected by other scientists and judges. The problem with most scientists is that they accept only materialism as the basis for knowledge, whereas wiser thinkers, such as Thomas Aquina, recognized that the natural sciences are subordinate to knowledge derived from Divine revelation. A question for those who insist on Darwinism or neo-Darwinism: what proof can you provide that mutations are random?
I am in no way a statatician but when running the values around in my mind in the wee hours, it occurs to me that multiple universes would be needed for proper "accounting".
If time is constant, there isn't enough of it.
where 76 percent of us think God had some role in human evolution.
“Nor is there a single mutation that provides evidence one species can evolve into another.” No, butterflies don’t mutate into buffalo, but there are biological clines where the two ends are recognized taxonomically as different species. And it certainly isn’t the result of a single mutation.
Debunking pseudoscience isn't propaganda, it's a public service.
So the first question would be: in which type of universe do we live, and how would we tell?
It seems the god of evolutionists is time. Time has no limits to what it can create. Plus, the time god doesn’t judge.
The number of die is the challenge - each roll would contain billions, at least.
I've always been more of atheist with heavy leanings towards the religion of the Diné. Early on in college, I had the pleasure of being the student of a devout adherent of Judaism.
I had no idea he was religious. I was curious as to how a man of science, could believe in G*d/gods. In essence, he shared with me that the world, the universe, he and I, time, all existence were a gift. And that he & I have been created with the ability and drive to seek knowledge & understanding of these creations.
The more he learned, the more knowledge he acquired, naturally strengthened his skills and his beliefs.
We are no accident.
To the contrary: the universe ain't nearly as vast as the problem. You'd know that if your understanding were anything but second hand.
Try quanifying the problem before making "glib" assertions with only tenuous connections to reality.
No, the first question is "where did all the energy come from for all these universes?"
No "magic wands" allowed.
That begets the question; "who or what is the necessary observer"?
Collectivley all "living" organisms? That leaves a lot of holes. The observer must be one able to perceive all things at all times, omniscient.
If you run the numbers, even the most generous age for the universe is paultry.
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” - Authur C Clark
Except we're not talking about a technology; this is supposed to be a natural process....
do you know we're not talking about a technology? Who says it's supposed to be a natural process.
Only God is natural. Everything else is a creation.
How do you know we’re not talking about a technology? Who says it’s supposed to be a natural process.
The materialists who claim dominion over scientific inquiry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.