Re: Directed evolution: evidence for teleology?

George and Pim:

George:

You seem to be misunderstanding ID (Behe included). Behe does not require
that we "subject God to scientific experiements." At least not that I am
aware of. Perhaps you could provide more details on this.

--Cornelius

Pim:

>> 1. The design inference doesn't do a very good job.
>> 2. There are theological or philosophical problems with the design
>> inference being posssible (POE, Leibniz' "God wouldn't intervene against
>> his creation" argument, etc).
>
>
> ID as it is formulated right now is scientifically vacuous.

Why is that?

> And ID lacks any scientific explanation. They claim that they can detect
> God's hand in areas which science not yet understands.

So would you object to SETI?

>
> Why one would look for the bacterial flagellum as somehow designed is
> beyond me. While it is based on mostly our ignorance, and ignores viable
> scientific hypotheses,

OK, this is type #1 from above.

> ID also leaves many relevant questions unanswered such as how, why,
> when... Why would God be intimately involved in the design of the
> flagellum, which seem to have found a use as TTSS (tupe III secretory
> system) in such friendly creatures as Yersenia (causes the bubonic
> plague). Was the bubonic plague which is seen as the cause of death of
> more than half the european population in the middle ages somehow
> intelligently designed? Or was it an unexpected side effect of the
> 'creative act' ? Why would God be so interested in the bacterial flagellum
> I wonder?

OK, this is type #2 from above.

--Cornelius
Received on Sat Oct 15 21:04:19 2005