I\'m really sorry for this double post. I\'m having some technical difficulties (for the last few months even)<br>
<br>
Anyway, I would like to say something in response to this little snippet from Palevitz\'s article.<br>
<br>
Sure,<br>
> Behe is coy enough (and a tad disingenuous) to avoid calling his designer<br>
> God, but that\'s consistent with recent creationist strategy. Having failed<br>
> to convince the Supreme Court that \"scientific creationism\" is science,<br>
> they now package it as \"intelligent design theory.\" <br>
<br>
Palevitz misses the point. Behe isn\'t being coy or disingenuous. He knows that science can\'t look for God. But science can make observations about intellegence and create tests for it. He is making the observation that certain mechanisms in life have unknown origins. The most similar mechanisms with known origins were intellegently designed. Therefore, it is not such an illogical leap to concider that these life mechanisms were also designed. <br>
<br>
Perhaps the designer is an alien. Perhaps a type of organization of energy that sustains intellegence but is unknown to us, however could have evolved in a purely naturalistic universe, decided to play around with carbon. Science fiction, speculation...of course. But the inference of design in nature is not an unscientific observation and does not automatically lead to the God depicted in the Bible. <br>
<br>
It should not be dismissed by the scientific establishment purely because theists will use it as evidence that God exists. <br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Ami<br>
<br>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 28 2000 - 00:55:05 EST