INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

If that is the case then it is also fair to ask how did your process of Evolution evolve? The process itself evolved from a more primitve process from a more primitive process from a even more primitive process from and even MORE primitive process, on and on in infinite regression?So if the question "Where did the Designer Come From?" (in the case of an uncreated divine Designer) is ligitimate, then why not "So where did Evolution evolve from?"Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Suppose that this Designer has told us some things and we didn't like it? Suppose the Designer said "jumping into bed for sex with someone you're not married to is fornication. Its wrong. And It will be judged."Well, if we like to fornicate we might want to throw out this bit of information and everyting else along with it from the speaker. Then its back to "Woe is us! Why won't this Wizard of Oz come out and explain to us?"Leave some from for the possibility that the Designer has provided some information but we threw it out because it contained some moral concepts that we disdained.This feels to us like a cat being stroked on her fur the wrong direction.We could say "But wait. We want to fornicate, steal, commit adultery, have idols, murder. Woe is us! Why DOESN'T this Wizrd come out and tell us things which doesn't rub our fur the wrong way."Maybe if you turn the cat around the rubbing won't be so annoying.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

No less bizarre than the assumption that someone or something had to create God.So if the atheist/agnostic wants to puzzle over the problem of "But this God Creator of yours had to have a cause too." then we can also puzzle over "How did this process of Evolution evolve?"You know that for a great number of evolutionists, evolution is a replacement for an intelligent Creator. Since many evos want to replace a Creator with Evolution exactly, the problem of infinite regress can also be tranfered from the theistic view to theirs. They should take all the baggage with them and not just what they want to take.I know you guys like to play tag team. The original poser of the issue has not yet answered me on this particular point. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Wouldn't any rebel in revolt claim the supposed errors of the authority he seeks to rebel against?If you had kids I'm sure they had their moments when they thought you were a "would be" parent - incompetent, not knowing what you're doing.

So you prefer your world without any final accounting or justice?Or is it that only when you're on the harmed side of the wrong doing that you'd want some final authority to correct the injustice?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

When you check the vehemence of a large public section of the US who oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design, it should be obvious."Keep God OUT! Tell us about Evolution in place of an Intelligent Creator."Would you like to do a clever dance for me and pretend they have other motives? I'm just going by their own words and their own suspicions.A good number want to exactly replace God with Evolution - right down the line. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

No that's not it. They want only ONE opinion on the science taught.You're not the only one who can be sarcastic. The "pro-science" crowd is afraid that teaching Intelligent Design will result in final exams of reciting "Hail Marys" for graduation.Maybe their afraid that if Darwinian orthodoxy doesn't keep every other opinion out they'll be passing the offering plate and singing hymns in the cafeteria by lunch time. Right. If the brain didn't arise out of random accident and "selection" but was intelligently designed, hey, that's NOT science.Of course detecting intelligent signals from outerspace from extraterrestials is science [SETI]. That is just as long as when we communicate with them they support our New Age philosophies which we already cherish.

Let's be fair now. The pro-science supporters of Evolution really are quite respectful of other views. We certainly could not charge them with any kind of bigotry as we would be accustomed to do with religious fundamentalists.An example of their fine accomodating attitude is witnessed in Richard Dawkins' quotation below. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jar, I can always count on you to verify this kind of bigotry. Can I also involve in a little bigotry and suggest that evos are just interested in their loose sex lives? Hey, you want to make blanket statements? What goes around comes around.Late Evolutionist Julian Huxley on the Merv Griffin show said this: So you charge all people interested in ID with wanting your money. Can I charge all the Evos with just wanting Darwin to allow them justification to sleep around with multiple sex partners?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Scientists (I said SCIENTISTS) are use to having long held notions one day challenged. Science knowledge can advance in just that fashion.Michael Behe for example is not just "some guy" but a scientist. And when his challenge to macro evolution theory based on molecular biology that was not available to Darwin comes out, it should be considered and taught.Instead some zeolots hoot it down. You see some Darwinists have to convince themselves that it is impossible for scientific curiosity to question Darwinian macro evolution. They have to pursuade themselves that all such challengers have only religious motivations in mind. There are challenges to Darwinists that I have read which contain no quotations from the Bible. These are the ones which some Darwinists must convince themselves either do not exist or are secretive religiously motivated.I agree that there are for some of us theological by products to accepting macro evolution or rejecting it. But good science would allow competent competing theories to be taught.Are they afraid that kids will think for themselves and decide that there are indeed holes in Darwin's theory? Seems like some parental groups are scared to let challenges to Darwinian theory be examined by their children.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

We have proof of Evolution. My carrot plant grew from one inch to two inches over the last two weeks. See! How can anyone say Evolution does not take place?The finches had short beaks when food was plentiful. Then as food became scarce they gradually all developed long beaks. See! Evolution takes place.Of course the beaks go from long back to short back to long back to short back to long - back and forth. Still that proves that all life evolved from an original one celled animal.I think if we just broadly define Evolution as change we might be able to dupe the public to believe that all change in living things is proof of Evolution. That way the ape to man paradigm is safe at least in the subconscience of the public for the foreseeable future.Hey, there's big money out there for papers proving Evolution. There's the prestige of National Geographic Magazine and PBS specials. There's grants and scholarships. Who wants to be a starving scientist publishing papers on problems with Darwin's Evolution?There's income. There's money into my pocket. That's the "Natural Selection" that really matters around here.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What is important is the evidence. The motivation is secondary. If Macro Evolution is right the atheistic or humanistic motivation of some scientists does not make it wrong. They could have a hidden motive and the theory still be correct.Same goes with ID. Intelligent Design is not wrong simply because an exponent of it is a theist. The evidence is the primary thing in the science classroom.Do you agree with me up to this point?I say it is a shame on the teacher if his or her motivations are pushed before the evidence. But many teachers of ID are not doing this. To keep Darwinism as the prevailing dogma opposers to competing ideas have to whip up the public to believe that religious motivations are all that these teachers have to speak in the classroom.But I am encouraged because I think slowly the public is catching on to this propoganda.Now back to Behe. It is interesting to me that the idea of Irreducible Complexity comes really right out of Darwin's own admission to a weakness in his theory. In 1859 Darwin wrote: Michael Behe has just taken up Darwin's own "challenge". He took molecular machinary on the cell level to show the unlikelihood of gradual successive modifcations to arrive at such operations.According to the Phd. Dawkins Behe is ignorant for even questioning Darwinism. And your dismissal of "rubbish" of his thesis rings with the same prejudice.Are you going to write a book refuting this "rubbish" point by point? Or do we just take it on your wink and smile that its rubbish?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I am confused here. Why are you bringing this up again? It started out as if you and I were going to agree that evidence is the most important thing.The religious or anti religious motivations do not, in and of themselves, make for the accuracy or inaccuracy of the research.I am willing to accept macro evolution as true if every evolutionists is a card carrying athiest IF the evidence proves it. The evidence as of yet does not lead me to conclude that macro evolution took place.I did not say there was no evidence. I said it is insufficinet to convince me that macro evolution took place.Now take Mike Behe for example. You can't say he hasn't studied the evidence favorable to macro evolution. In fact if I recall correctly he believes in common decent from one organism. He does not believe gradual successive modifications rather than intelligent design.I heard him personally say that he decided to take the path of ID not because of what he doesn't know but because of what he does know. In other words it is not that he has thrown up his hands and said "Well we can't figure it out. Therefore it must have been an intelligent agent's design." His decision to adopt ID was based on what he knows about how the machinery of cell micro biology works. His rebuttals to many of his critics are published on the Internet. So why are you trying to start this urban legend that he has somehow recanted his theories?I view that with the same suspicion that I would that Darwin had a death bed retraction according to his maid. Sounds a little too dramatic to take without careful verification.This is a polite way of saying that I think you are probably exaggerating. You may be trying to extrapolate a point he conceded to sound as if he retracted his whole idea.Anyway he answers some of his critics on some websites I can point you to. But I don't like discussions like this to develope into just referals to links. Have you read his rebuttals?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Lawyers are very clever at getting you to say or appear to say things. But in debating scientists Behe is in his element.I just finished reading a very interesting response to one of his chief critics, Ken Miller. The response was too technical concerning the details of microbiology for a layman like me in that field. But it does show Behe had an answer to Miller's criticism. This talk was on trueorigins. And I only quote here the final paragraph: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The phenomenon of bacteria which survive a bout with an antibiotic by adapting, while weaker ones died out, may be used to support micro evolution.Macro evolution extrapolates on that concept to theorize the bacteria evolved into another type of organism.Some evolutionists want to blur the distinction so that weak evidence for macro evolution can be made to appear stronger than it really is, i.e. that is for one type of organism evolving over long periods of time into another type of organism.These are mostly games with words to gain a advantage in the prose and in the rhetoric when evidence is lacking. Proof for micro evolution is extrapolated to appear to prove macro evolution.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.