Re: Origin of life, thermodynamics 2/2 #2

john queen (john.queen.ii@mail.utexas.edu)
Fri, 18 Jul 1997 13:22:33 -0500

At 10:37 AM 7/18/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>Bill Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>Somehow this was supposed to show
>>that people can recognize design, but I submit these primitive people were
>>simply reasoning that nature doesn't make things with polished surfaces,
>>some of them transparent, and with clean lines not softened by feathers,
>>and with rotary moving parts like wheels and propellors. They were
>>identifying the _source_ of design, not the fact of design.
>>========================================================================
>
>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?
>
>****************************************************************************
>*********
>Steve clark-
>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.

--I disagree with the thought that evolution remains a possible mechanism
for the fabrication of an eye. I believe mentioning the supposive
mechanisms of evolution in this context only shows the 'realness' of our
creator. In this context it is so obvious to see that things didn't get
here from nothing by chance.



john w queen ii

3 + 3 = 6 (for all values of 3)
3 + 3 = 7 (never, similar to the chances of evolution)