Evolution by design
Biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University
"The conclusion of inteligent design flows naturaly from the data itself- not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs... The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design... has no justifiable foundation...Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature."
Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box (New York:Free Press, 1996), 232.
"The conclusion of inteligent design flows naturaly from the data itself . . ."
I quite disagree (as I'm sure you knew I would). Just because the complexity of nature is beyond the comprehension of the human mind does not imply that it is the result of a more sophisticated intelligence. Man is the product of these natural events, and it is rather pompous of him to believe that he should be able to explain these processes.
I realize that my argument could also be used to demonstrate that intelligent design (God, if you must) can not conclusively be denied as well. I agree. I don't know that God exists or does not, and no one does! That's why faith is the basis of religion, not proof.
Bowflex will build slabs of muscle on you. It will even shave your chest for a few dollars more.
I dont think it is the complexityof nature but rather the complexity of how nature began that we dont understand, and too me lends itself to intelligent design. Evolution is obvious, I just dont think it happens in the manner scientist think.
So you're saying that you don't understand something, and this for you lends itself to there being a god? Just because i see a sublime amount of extremely complex patterns does not mean that they were all designed. Or if i see a pattern and do not understand how it was made, it does not mean it was designed -- although there is that possibility.
Originally Posted by UGLY
Well actually, I've always been intrigued by the concept of the beginning of nature. We think of the time line as being continuous in the future. No one expects time/the universe/nature to ever end (especially if you believe in the conservation of energy and matter), and it's not too hard to conceive of the future as infinite. Why, then, is it so hard to see the past as infinite also? What we see today is just the natural flow of events that have always existed. It isn't necesary to postulate a beginning or a creator. Even if the big bang theory is true, events before it set it into motion. Our perceptible corner of the universe is just a small portion of the infinity that encompasses all of existence. The human mind likes things to be tied up in neat packages, but as I said in my other post, the human mind is not necesarily capable of comprehending the true nature of things (except for mine, of course ).
Spider why don't you just go full-bore like Kant and say that the human mind cannot know the true nature of things?
Maybe we can and maybe we Kant, but it's wrong in my opinion (and yours, as indicated by your other post) to assume that because things are so complex, a higher intelligence must have created them.
Tags for this Thread