INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

Comment erased.I am interested in less heat and more light on this subject.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

With many people it is dogma even of a religious kind. It requires I think a huge amount of "faith". For lack of a better word I use the word "faith".Some people do not have enough of this faith to believe the claims of a Dawkins or a Ken Miller.And in this technological age many people view scientists as a new class of priests with the authority to provide all knowledge to improve our lives.I hope that you take note that I keep using words like "many" and "some".

Point me to where I can read the testimony. Why should I assume he got trounced just because you say he did?Yea, the details of that exhange are beyond my knowledge. But I got the jest of it. Miller exaggerated according to Behe. He pointed that out by using the words of the experimentor himself.

Miller called his defense of Evolution "Finding Darwin's God". That's a curious title for a book having nothing to do with faith but only with evidence. "Well established scientific theory" I like that phrase. I agree with it. A "well established scientific theory" which may be replaced in this century with a better theory.Thanks for not saying "well established scientific fact" beyond questioning and beyond challenges. I don't know what you mean here. And I'm not sure you do either. The evidence which I think really should be there to demonstrate macro evolution occured is lacking.Aside from that the idea is too preposterous for me to accept. When I look at Mount Rushmore I see something took place of which is a different nature then when I look at the Grand Canyon. If you asked me to believe that millions of years of erosion carved four human faces on the side of the mountian I would be skeptical. Adding more and more time would not help.The grand canyon on the other hand I could not as easily ascribe to intelligent intervention.The DNA code smacks of intelligent design. Actually a lot of things remind me of intelligent design. IF you want to believe that the scheme was blindly stumbled upon through random trial and error, you go ahead and believe that.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Thanks for the link.And no, though a debate's technical details went over my head, I don't assume you can be trusted to inform me that your favored argument was the winner.And attorneys get big bucks for the skill of getting people on the witness stand to say things to increminate themselves. That's their job. Add media hype and you can make a good case of propoganda for a lot of things.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Quoted reviewers:“The first half of the book is really an apologetic for evolution . ”“Miller also shows that the complexity of the blood clotting mechanism, which Behe says is irreducibly complex, could be produced through successive stages. Miller also demonstrates that Behe's hypothesis that the original first 'Designed' cell had all its future complexity coded genetically but turned off was doomed to failure because of the accumulation of errors in unexpressed genes. Overall I would give a partial victory to Miller, but he does not manage to dismantle the challenge of irreducible complexity simply by giving examples of the generation of more complex systems from simple systems. ““Miller's book debunks Behe and others as simply purveying bad science. It argues that merely because we haven't yet found clear evidence of an evolutionary mechanism at the cellular biochemical level doesn't mean we won't.”“On a scientific level, he argues that the indeterminacy characteristic of the physical world, as established by the quantum theory, has been proven to also apply to biology at the molecular level through random genetic mutation which is unpredictable in principle. ““It was... sort of. For the most part, this book just describes what evolution is, how it works, how we know it happens (and is happening), and why creationism, intelligent design and every other form of evolution denial is the most intellectully bankrupt, deceptive, pseudo-scientific enterprise out there. ““First, Kenneth Miller, as an educator and celluar biologist, makes an excellent summary of the case for evolution. If someone does not understand that case or has never really seen all the evidence for evolutionary theory added all together, here it is, neatly summarized and clearly explained. “Not a defense of Evolution ?

I know. Such words are usually associated with intelligent activity.Same with words like "selection" which evolutionists use. I didn't read your comments on algorithms. But I know enough about algorithms to know that they are also usually designed and purposeful.If you are a true Darwinist don't you propose a purposeless and blind process? There is no goal or purpose. Evolutionists usually jump all over me when I ask them what is the purpose or the goal of the process of Evolution. They insist that it has no mind, no goal, no purpose.The activities you are speaking of now are those of intelligent intervention or design. A purposeless process is taking Edison's approach? Where did it get the "inspiration" ?Edison said genius was 10% inspiration and 90% persperation. Are you saying that the process of Evolution was "inspired" like Edison? And then it worked hard for millions of years to realize that inspirational idea?