Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Can you deny that

​

(i) Many publishing scientists would say that molecular, cellular and/or organismal data, whether completely conclusive or not, suggests design
(ii) That view is not represented in contemporary mainstream literature

---

It is a straightforward matter to confirm the first and deny the second.Evolutionary biologists from Darwin to Dawkins and all stops in between would confirm that organisms "suggest design." It is to explain this suggestion that Darwin applied his observational powers and Dawkins directs his somewhat discomfiting analyses. Most all biiologists would concur that organisms "suggest design."As a result of this driving interest in explaining how the appearance of design was reified many biology textbooks, articles and courses start from this very point.Of course, they don't reach the conclusion you would like them to reach - but the suggestion of design remains the single most fascinating aspect of evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ OK - modify design in (i) and (ii) to design by a higher intelligence.

---

Ah now we're getting somewhere, but not quite. Time to ponder "intelligence" methinks ...Even a cursory glance at Artificial Intelligence research will show that systems of rules can generate results that appear to the observer much like intelligence.So the question is now ... By "a higher intelligence" do you mean just that, which could include a system of rules whose results appear to the observer as intelligent design, or do you mean "a being of higher intelligence."If the latter, where is the evidence that distinguishes this from the former?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
ID/IC is a valid arguement and has far, far more support than YEC.

---

And the form of this valid argument is what?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Pamboli

​

I'm not trying to prove a God like higher intelligence. I'm simply wanting to say that the existence of a God-like higher intelligence is one possibility and should be stateable in the scientific literature.

---

Higher intelligence - no problem. Perfectly comprehensible within science as a testable hypothesis which if proved could be colligated under general laws, but not on the table at the moment due to lack of evidence. Christian supernatural God-like higher intelligence - not comprehensible as not a testable hypothesis, and not capable of colligation under general laws.It's not that difficult to understand, really.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Pamboli

​

The IC arguement is that most cellular and physiological systems examined at the molecular level display 'irreducible complexity'. That after it is reduced to it's essential components there are no examples in the literature, at the molecular level, demomstrating the discovery or even hypothesis of conceivable gradual steps of evoltuion that maintain some selectable function all the way.

​

It proves nothing but is highly suggestive of a higher intelligence.

---

I see. My misunderstanding - I thought you meant "valid argument" in the logical sense rather than just "a reasonable point of view." Not that I think it is the latter, either, but that is a different discussion. [b] [QUOTE]Behe examined the moelcuar evolution literature and in 1995 no studies address this issue. 80% cover evolution within protein families, 15% cover chemical evoltuion experiments and 5% cover mathematical treatments but no (out of tens of thousands) papers identify gradual steps of evoltuion. The story sold to the layman is a bluff.[/b][/QUOTE]Behe read 10's of thousands of abstracts in 1995? 28 a day minimum to read 10000? In enough detail to get all this info. And held down his day job? Never mind an intelligent designer - I think I'm beginning to believe in superman! [b] [QUOTE]At the organismal level eveoltuionists have got away for years with just so stories (feathers were used for catching prey etc) [/b][/QUOTE]Really? Do you have that reference? I can't believe the execrable "Walking with Dinosaurs" overlooked such a ludicrous reconstruction - they seemed to go out of their way to include this sort of thing.[b] [QUOTE]but at the molecular level Darwin's 'Black Box'is opened and these arguements fall apart because we see all of the components and discover that a certain minimal subset is required for function.[/b][/QUOTE]I have no idea what this means, except perhaps that the intelligent designer wasted their time as a minimal subset would have done - 43 species of parrot, nipples on men, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I don't know what your area of expertise is

---

Still trying to work it out myself [b] [QUOTE]but if you are a molecular biologist[/b][/QUOTE]Heaven forfend![b] [QUOTE]you should know that almost no molecular details are known or even hypothesised about the origin of any cellular system.[/b][/QUOTE]I hear this now and then, and then and now I see replies which seem to indicate there is a fair bit of work going on in just such areas. Of course, research follows money and in the current genome-obsessed climate, I'm sure the molecular biologists have more lucrative pathways (o the pun!) to explore.[b] [QUOTE]The feather thing is a well known example that I'm pretty sure is a peer reviewed idea.[/b][/QUOTE]If you could find it, I would appreciate it. It must be a good laugh.[b] [QUOTE] The 'minimal subset' is required for the thing to work at all. The rest of it makes it work much, much better. You can be the first to ditch any of your genes. [/b][/QUOTE]Gotcha. Picked up the wrong sense from the original, sorry. Still it did allow me to get in the "43 species of parrot and nipples on men" line - one of the strongest arguments against an intelligent designer, with a sardonic twist.