Evolution is most likely a part of intelligent design

Welcome to the fray kent75 Of course.Diests (and others) considered this even before evolution was developed by Darwin and Wallace and others into a science. Science explains the how but not the why eh?The problem is that the modern ID movement (a) does not take their concept to the logical conclusion of what is, and what isn't, evidence for design in the universe, and (2) only want to use "IDology" to attack evolution rather than present a viable alternative. How do you know that there isn't life already existing on those planets? Intelligent life?The only "direction" that is embedded in DNA is to reproduce, making new packages of DNA (organisms). After that mutation and natural selection accounts for the diversity of life -- according to evolution, which you now posit as being "part of Intelligent Design" and which would be included when you take the concept to it's logical conclusion. Why is it necessary to evolve "human" life rather than just successful life? If that life is also intelligent and can communicate with other intelligent life then that is bonus eh?Certainly you cannot expect them to also speak english ... You are aware that this is the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc? Assuming that {what currently exists} is due just to DNA?Tell me, what was the DNA "plan" for dinosaurs? What was their role in the development of human intelligence? What is "too complex"? What is "complexity" anyway? How do you measure it? Wouldn't simplicity be a better measure of design? - No extraneous parts?Certainly our ancestors 2000 years ago were incapable of making the technologies that we currently have, and yet they are as much Homo sapiens as we are. Were they not complex enough?How much less would we need to have to not be too complex? Note that the more intelligent apes that have been tested have more intelligence than the least intelligent humans.Enjoy.ps: if you use {peek mode} when replying you can see how other posts are formated to see how certain effects are done.type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Bacteria have even less, and yet they respond to different stimulii with different behavior. That is really all "instinctual" behavior is -- response to a stimulii.Often this is chemical - taste, smell, consumed by the organism - but it can also be changing light and heat levels.It's not so much in the DNA as it is in the response of the developed organism. You can think of the stimulii as providing energy to a system. If it is pre-preprogramed then the same result always comes out. But are both correct eh? Another name for this is "mutationism" where the changes are in some way directed.This is not necessary to achieve both diversity AND adaptation to changing conditions.All that is needed is a system that creates many random variations on a theme and another system that selects the ones that are best adapted to the changing conditions.The first is called random mutation, the second is called natural selection (survival and sexual selection). Not pure chance -- the best adaptations are selected. As the "arms race" between prey and predator escalates from generation to generation to ones that are most adaptable to changing conditions of environment and their predators and prey will be selected.Intelligence is a by-product of creative adaptations.It is virtually inevitable that intelligence will arise eh? Look at the problem solving ability of so many species, from octopus to bear to squirrel to seagull.The system of evolution will select for it.No hidden DNA code required. No directed mutationism required. Do you think it is? Certainly the current examples of IDology is that it is the same as creationism, but does it need to be so restrained?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It's a little more than that - it has to do with reducing the feature\system to the point where you take one more element away and it doesn't function, and then question how that situation could have evolved.See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for a quick intro to Behe's definition and to the problems with this line of thinking.The problem is that it is as intellectually challenging as wondering how a natural arch formed. Doing a google image on "natural arch" nets you some 6,910 images. One of my favorite images is of the Bridge of Ross is in Ireland, County Clare, as it looks like blocks in a designed arch.http://users.sisna.com/archman/SABridgeOfRoss2.htmlIt's like arguing that if you take away the keystone of an arch it falls down, so how can you build one by random action eh?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.