Discussions on Rationally Speaking

Back to Rationally Speaking

Not really rationally speaking . . .

by Thomas

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form.

I agree with core of the article . . . but the worst thing about the “intelligent design” movement is that; this is an obvious waste of minimal resources. There is only so much money for education floating around – why waste it on bunk? 

I am not a geneticist and yet this reasoning makes no sense to me.

Consider this,

 . . . . However, Behe draws the line at the molecular level: while evolutionists might be able to explain how humans descended from other primates, and might even have a good explanation for the evolution of the eye, they can’t tell us how complex biochemical pathways came into existence. Take blood clotting, for example. In order for the blood to coagulate when a cut through the skin is made, several proteins have to act in a precise sequence. Take any of them out, and you bleed to death.

Hey just like a hemophiliac! Some people’s genetic inheritance and expression will lead to this protein synthesis encoding going awry. This is proof of BAD design; or weak design; a mutative break down in the negative direction; or its proof of no-design; but a micro-intuitive God is a silly thing to suggest - or a God of the gaps. Gaps in understanding are just that; gaps. But often time and research will demonstrate otherwise; a natural reason; and information obtained from nature. “Belief” and “belief systems” have no place in science; and are irrelevant. If a God (concept) is responsible for the gaps in your worldview keep it there, hold on to it; and so what; it has nothing to do with science.  

Consider this,

. . . Or consider the flagellum of a bacterium (the “tail” that allows some bacteria to swim). It is made of several parts intricately interconnected to each other. Again, take one of them away, and the bacterial cell will be stuck in place forever. But, notices Behe, evolution is supposed to work gradually and to assemble structures that work at every single step (since it cannot predict the future use of something). This creates an apparent paradox whence a mindless natural force is supposed to come up with something that smells terribly of intelligent design. Isn’t this a deathblow to evolution as the explanation of life’s “irreducible” complexity?

            If it’s a deathblow it’s a deathblow to reasoning. Merely suggesting intelligent design can be tabled until Q-God? is an answered question. As the other front; the multitude of non-“belief”-based science; genetics makes headway left, right and forward every single day - even conceding an irrelevant point on a conceptualization of transcendence that “God Exists” yields no new scientific understanding. It is mere assumption based upon more bad reasoning. It is irrelevant to even suggest it. Contrary to the mere “designer exists” suggestion - evidence for evolution is overwhelming; and intelligent design is nothing more than mere suggestion. If I were to take this absurd reason to a logical end; I would have to assume anything with apparent structure is evidence of the assumption; that there is a micro-intuitive God? What about snowflakes this too equals the micro-intuitive-God-concept. This God is a snowflake designer - just how are these complex and beautiful structures created, quite literally, out of thin air and water - out of laws that exist in nature; not in super-nature.

(http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/)

 Intelligent design “of life” or anything is mere assumption. It is a suggestion of belief and is not a part of science. One can believe in God and be scientist; why not. But no new understanding, no new axioms; laws; or facts are revealed by bringing a religious worldview into science or into scientific evolution theory.  There is no need for the “God of the Gaps”; this micro-intuitive God concept.  And most of all it is a waste of resources.

15 January 2005