Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...

No miracles needed. Mutation and natural selection works just fine.Here is a link on an on-line lecture that may help explain this:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell

​

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

​

Researchchannel.org

As for blasphemy, Heinlein had a good take on that:

Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing - with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for the second and third place.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I explain it as the result of evolution.How do you explain it?And if your answer involves the supernatural or miracles or some such, please provide empirical evidence to support that answer lest your response fall into the category of belief in ancient folklore rather than science (this is the Science Forum, after all).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Please see my post number 80.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Empirical evidence?How about mutation plus natural selection x lots of time?And what do you have to match that?Why do you think biological scientists accept the evidence for evolution? They know it best, so you would think that if the evidence was deficient they would know.And what do you have to offer that contradicts all of their research and studies.Incredulity? Ancient folklore? Religious belief? Scripture? "Divine" revelation?This is a Science Forum. You need to do better than that here.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What does creationism have to do with intelligent design?I thought creationism was a religious belief, while intelligent design was a science.Or at least that's what we are being asked to believe.If you really want to support intelligent design, try posting 1) without any reference to religious belief, and 2) without attacking the theory of evolution. If intelligent design has any legs to stand on lets see them.(But it doesn't; it is "designed" to sneak religion back into the schools by pretending to be a science, in much the same way creation "science" tried earlier--before the epic FAIL! of Edwards vs. Aguillard.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You titled your post "Creationist Side Of Silly Design."I ask again, what do creationists have to do with intelligent or any other kind of design pretending to be a science?(But I have already answered that in my previous post.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Intelligent design clearly is not science; it was concocted after the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision of the Supreme Court, which banned creation "science" from the classrooms, as another way to get creation "science" back into the classrooms. Discerning that is not rocket science.Then there's the "cdesign proponentsists" from The Pandas Thumb that gave the whole sordid affair away. After the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision that book was edited to replace "creationists" with "design proponents" -- except that through a boo-boo in cut and paste they ended up with "cdesign proponentsists" in a draft. This was discovered during preparation for the Dover decision that determined that creation "science" and intelligent design are both religion.Further, creation "science" and intelligent design are both inherently anti-science, as is astrology. All three of these clearly reject the scientific method, but attempt to steal the reputation for accuracy that science has accrued over the decades and centuries in order to fool the unwary.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Intelligent design proponents (or is it "cdesign proponentsists"?) have the burden of proof to show that their claims are science, and that they follow the scientific method.So far they have failed.Instead, the evidence--including a decision from a Federal District Court--shows that ID is religion lite, and it is not hard to see that it arose after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, in an effort to sneak religion back into the classrooms.No legitimate universities teach ID. The only ones that have a serious ID program are (surprise!) fundamentalist Christian universities.There are no serious scientific research programs studying ID. A few fundamentalists who also happen to be scientists (e.g., Behe) try to push their religious beliefs as science, but so far they have been epic failures! The evidence just doesn't support their claims! And they can't twist and misrepresent it enough to convince anyone other than fundamentalists who share their beliefs.The truth is they can't follow the scientific method. It leads to answers that are inconvenient for their beliefs.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Actually the human skull is beautiful. I've examined thousands over the years.And it shows our history.During my first human osteology course in grad school, we learned all of the bones of the skull right down to identifying them from just small fragments. We had to identify the name of the bone and the side (for those bones that were bilateral).After we had finished with the human skull the professor brought out a number of other primate skulls, all the way back to some of the small monkeys. It was amazing--we knew all of those bones too! They had somewhat different shapes and sizes, but there was never a question of which bone matched those of the human skull.No, sorry. The human skull's shape is not silly. It is opportunistic, and it shows our history.And it doesn't matter what genesis says; we can read the history of our species in the bones. (Genetics confirms that history independently, as well.)Buzz, you believe what you want, but when it comes to natural events supported by empirical evidence, don't try to tell us what is real.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.