Stan Z. replied:
>This is plausible, but it plays right into Mike Behe's argument that
>*JUST THESE KINDS OF SYSTEMS* are found at the cellular and molecular level
>in living organisms! So what are we to conclude about the lens of the eye,
>for example? (polished, transparent) And about the other kinds of "molecular
>machines" Behe discusses? Is there a difference in how we should regard
>macroscopic objects like the airplane and microscopic objects which display
>many of the same characteristics we "intuitively" associate with a designer?
****************************************************************************
*********
One thing that seems to be lost in this debate of whether we should
extrapolate our recognition of design in human-made things to believe that
complex things in nature are also designed is that this really says nothing
about the mechanism by which the complex things in nature arise. To believe
that the eye is the result of intelligent design says nothing about the
mechanism of its fabrication. When considering mechanisms, evolution
remains a possible explanation. Thus, recognition of design in nature is
not evidence against evolution.
Steve
_________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter." Proverbs
________________________________________________________