By ignorance I mean absence of knowledge, not stupidity.
We know (rather than simply believe) that a human created the arrow
head not only because it looks man-made, but because it looks man-made
_and_ we have multiple compelling lines of independently verifiable
and mutually verifying evidence to support the conclusion, not least
of which is that we've seen it done by many people.
It's a logical fallacy to conclude that just because something looks
as though it was designed by an intelligence, that in fact it was. You
need more & better evidence.
Bob,
At best you are saying that even though something looks like it may have
designed, it's rational to conclude that it was not, until evidence proves
it was.
On the other hand, I believe that if something looks like it was designed,
it's rational to conclude that it *was* designed, unless there is evidence
it was not. The fact that I don't know who the designer is, and didn't see
anyone make it, nor have ever seen anyone make it, is really irrelevant to
whether the object or system shows evidence of design.
I know the following is not speaking of the inanimate world of the
snowflake, however it speaks to how we can reach conclusions, and the role
'science at large' is or is not playing.
------------------
An interview was done recently with Biochemist, Michael Behe, now Professor
of Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, U.S.A. He is also
author of the book Darwins Black Box The Biochemical Challenge.
Q: Why do you feel that life provides evidence of intelligent design?
A: We infer design whenever we see complex functional arrangements. Take for
instance the machines that we use every day a lawn mower, a car, or even
simpler things. An example I like to use is a mousetrap. You conclude that
it is designed because you see different parts arranged to perform the
function of catching a mouse.
Science has now advanced enough to have uncovered the foundation level of
life. And much to our surprise, scientists have found functional, complex
machinery at the molecular level of life. For instance, within living cells
there are little molecular trucks that carry supplies from one side of the
cell to the other. There are tiny molecular sign posts that tell these
trucks to turn left or right. Some cells have molecular outboard motors
that propel the cells through liquid. In any other context, when such
functional complexity is evident, people would conclude that these things
have been designed. We have no other explanation for this complexity, claims
of Darwinian evolution not withstanding. Since its been our uniform
experience that this sort of arrangement bespeaks design, we are justified
in thinking that these molecular systems were also intelligently designed.
Q: Why in your opinion do the majority of your colleagues disagree with your
conclusions regarding intelligent design?
A: Many scientists disagree with my conclusions because they see that the
idea of intelligent design has extrascientific implications that it seems
to point strongly beyond nature. This conclusion makes many people nervous.
However I was always taught that science is supposed to follow the
evidence wherever it leads. In my view, it is a failure of nerve to back
away from something that is so strongly indicated by the evidence simply
because you think the conclusion has unwelcome philosophical implications.
Q: How do you respond to critics who claim that accepting the idea of
intelligent design promotes ignorance?
A: The conclusion of design is not due to ignorance. Its not due to what
we dont know; its due to what we do know. When Darwin published his book
The origin of the Species 150 years ago, life seemed simple. Scientists
thought that the cell was so simple that it might just spontaneously bubble
up from the sea mud. But since then, science has discovered that cells are
enormously complex, much more complex than the machinery of our 21st-century
world. That functional complexity bespeaks purposeful design.
----------------------
It's not my intent to belabor this point on a photography list (as we of
course have done in the past)
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
