INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

Co-evolution is a speculative way of getting around what would certainly appear, for face value, as an obvious design. For instance, there are orchids (the exact name escapes me) that will wait for the bee to enter. The stamen will physically pin down the bee and place the pollen on the back of its wings so that when it lets go of the bee, it is capable of fertilizing many flowers. You can say, "Oh, they must have evolved together and established a symbiotic relationship," but that would require so many steps so as to make it highly implausible. Aside from which, it makes allusions towards selection as being capable of intent. But you still believe that unguided nature is capable of producing all that it has all on its own. That's an obscurantist argument. So we hear. The only problem is that creationists and ID'ists are asking where the evidence is of all of these experimentations. If there zillions of trials, then there should be at least millions of preserved evidence of such transmogrifications. Is the appearance of design superficial? How would you know in either case when you have nothing else to compare it to?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

In what capacity? From a gynecological standpoint or, err, otherwise? I'm aware of that. I'm not sure how you think this affects the design though. A baby can fit through a birth canal. I'm aware that very large penises can cause discomfort for very petite women, but that's not an argument against design. Only one other. If they fit into any other, I'd have to say that that person probably suffers from micropenis syndrome. LOL! I don't know the anatomy of female sheep. I don't take trips to the heavy petting zoo.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

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.

It's a feature that makes up for a design defect; the heat-sensitive sperm. How about the internal testes of whales and dolphins? The alleged common designer did away with the scrotum for them, why not for us?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Hi NJ,Arguments from personal incredulity combined with a lack of familiarity with evolution continue to permeate your posts: It only seems highly implausible to you because you're unaware that this issue has already been investigated and found consistent with evolutionary theory. Measured mutation rates of living organisms are consistent with a) the genetic separation between living organisms as measured by DNA analysis; and b) the amount of time that has passed since the organisms diverged from each other as recorded in the fossil record. Obscurantist argument? You're going to have to explain that one. We're happy to explain evolutionary theory to any level of detail you're happy with. No one is obscuring anything. Unless you're barking up the "Were you there? No, you didn't see it happen, therefore you couldn't know!" tree again, the evidence is massive. The same evolutionary processes that play out in creatures with relatively long reproductive cycles can be observed in real time with shorter lived organisms, like bacteria in petri dishes. DNA analysis shows that the same kind of copying errors observed to take place in bacteria and other organisms with relatively short life cycles also occur in longer lived species. Your argument is that the perceived design in nature is similar to human design. The reply is that it isn't similar at all because it contains characteristics not seen in human design: a) incredible intricacy and complexity that seems the result of huge amounts of trial and error over long time periods; b) a large element of "making do with what was already there", like the panda's thumb, and an equally large contribution of "just good enough".Your view on design also fails to take into account what Jar earlier noted about the propagation of design innovations. One of his examples was windshield wipers on cars. After their first appearance they quickly they propagated to all cars of all manufacturers, which is not a pattern we see anywhere in the fossil record. One can draw another example from the computer world. After memory caches first appeared, they quickly propagated to all computers of all manufacturers everywhere.In other words, the pattern of change seen in the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary change, and completely inconsistent with the what we would see for promulgation of design innovation.--Percy

In fact, I am reading Darwin's Black Box now, so I refrain from further comments about Behe until I finish. I was only speaking from anectdotal evidence I heard on this forum.One point you still simply refuse to address. I will keep this post short, so that if you decide to respond, you will have to address it. One group looks at the evidence and concludes that evolution (or "macro-evolution" if you will, if that's any different) has occured. The other group looks at the evidence and determines that not enough is known to say that evolution has occured. In other words, there is a disagreement about the evidence. Assuming that both groups are composed of intelligent people who are not overlooking evidence due to stupidity or ignorance, there is one alternative: someone is lieing! To determine this, we must look at motivation. Now I ask you, which group has more motivation to lie?

---

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

Hi NJ,You've ignored Schraf's rebuttal. You said, "The penis and the vagina are perfectly suited for one another." Schraf pointed out that the sheep vagina is perfectly suited for the human male penis. How does that affect your conclusions about design?Your argument still boils down to declaring that the integration of form and function throughout the natural world could never have come about through natural processes, and could only have come about through design. Citing specific examples like penis and vagina does nothing to change the form of your argument, which is merely: Look how amazing this is, it must have been designed!As has been pointed out, most of how amazing it appears to you is due to your lack of understanding of just how amazing natural processes can be. Thunder and lightning, as amazing as they are, are not the designer at work, though they were once thought so. The changing seasons, as amazing as they are, are not the designer at work, though they were once thought so. The planetary orbits, as amazing as they are, are not the designer at work, though they were once thought so.And so the diversity of life, as amazing as it is and if history is any guide, is not the designer at work.--Percy

That is exactly what I said, yes. The problem with Behe is not his motivation, but that he's talking rubbish. Don't be silly. Darwinism is the "prevailing dogma" (or, in English, "accepted scientific theory") 'cos it has evidence to support it. The ultimate creationist fantasy ... one day, everyone will see that you're right. (1) Predictive power is a strength in a theory.(2) Darwin's statement has nothing to do with Behe's notion of "irreducible complexity". No, alas. Behe certainly seems rather foolish, not so much for "questioning Darwinism", as for believing he has when he hasn't. Ah yes, "prejudice". The only reason why anyone would disagree with you. A book is not necessary. Compare what Darwin said with the definition of "irreducible complexity"; consider that Behe has testified under oath that they are not the same.

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.

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".

Yes, they allow you to make claims without any support, pretty sneaky.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Perhaps so the truth be known and the untruth expose the god of this world. The bible does not say why exactly, the Lord says not to tempt his Father but to pray to be delivered from evil, etc...All Gods creatures are designed to age, thus even our time on this earth is but by design. The DNA teleromes get smaller, all our cells age except I believe the male sperm does not age, but that too is evidence of ID in that the genetic information is not compromised by the aging of the rest of the body, so we age and a new generation comes to life.God of the bible designed the child birth to be natural to leave the umbilical cord alone. However doctors are taught the proper method is to clamp the cord if they wish to practice medicine.The truth is there is no reason to clamp the cord unless the mothers or childs life is threatened. Why is the doctor clamping the cord? Is not all this all a part of the god of this world defying the God of the bible. The bible says the god of this world is a liar, thief, murderer, etc...The natural birth is an example of an intelligent designed birth that has few complications to the mother, child, and little risk of infections.Doctors are now killing third world countries children by bringing this abomidable practice of cutting the umbilical cord. All over the world children were being born naturally without infections and now they are dying of infections due to the abomiable practice of cutting of the umbilical cord.The baby naturally after breathing closes down the valves on his side of the umbilical cord and only then does the mothers massive arteries supporting the umbilical cord get shut down.The mother should bleed to death due to the size of the arteries but the intelligent designer has a special way of closing these arteries so the mother does not bleed to death.Instead of letting the child and the mother naturally clamp down on each side of the umbilical cord man has to do the abominable thing to clamp down prematurely causing caviation of the heart heart due to this needed volume of blood missing to jumpstart its life and then naturally close down the valves. The mothers life is threatened because her arteries are not naturally closing in response to the childs but suddenly, etc...The creator in his wisdom knew the heart needed to be primed with the blood of the umbilical cord, but the god of the world has doctors denying the child this prime blood source.The entire birthing naturally is all an example an intelligent design in respect to the umbilical cord.------------------------------------------Anther example of Intelligent Design is the Creator designed the vitamen B17 in the food seeds that are designed to kill the cancer cell naturally. Its like a smart bomb from our creator to his creation in respect to cancer prevention.The god of this world has had this vitamen banned because its intelligently designed by the creator.Fortunately one can supplement ones diet with almonds, whole grains and alpha sprouts, etc... and get this vitamen naturally. It has for the most part been taken out of our food chain, its not in the multi-vitamens,etc...--------------------------------------------------According to research from years ago, provided by nutritionists and medical scientists, vitamin B17 is a natural cyanide-containing compound that gives up its cyanide content only in the presence of a particular enzyme group called beta glucosidase or glucuronidase. Miraculously, this enzyme group is found almost exclusively in cancer cells. When it is found elsewhere in the body, it is accompanied by greater quantities of another enzyme, rhodanese, which has the ability to disable the cyanide and convert it into completely harmless substances. Cancer tissues do not have this protecting enzyme.So, according to past scientific knowledge, cancer cells are faced with a double threat: the presence of one enzyme exposing them to cyanide, while the absence of another enzyme found in all other normal cells results in the cancer's failure to detoxify itself. Leave it to nature to provide a form of cyanide that can naturally destroy a cancer cell. The cancer cells that are unable to withstand the cyanide are destroyed, while the non-cancerous cells are not threatened by the cyanide, and, therefore, remain unharmed. Never underestimate the body's potential!Vitamin B17 is found naturally in many foods. If you eat foods containing vitamin B17, your body will know what to do next. All other animals in nature instinctively do this. Consider it nature's cancer prevention. If only modern medicine would allow it.Detox Article: August 2006 ArchivesP.S. Doctors are a worthy profession the problem is not the doctors but how the god of this world is compromising the health of the peoples. Edited by Charley, : No reason given.Edited by Charley, : Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

No. No. No.---I have explained this to you before. No-one claims that micro-evolution is proof of macro-evolution. This non-claim, which no-one has ever actually made, has been invented by creationists so they can duck the actual proof and fight a stupid straw man of their own devising.