| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
12 Sep 2005 02:10:58 AM |
| Object: |
A design for life |
A design for life
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1567967,00.html
John Sutherland meets Michael Behe, a leading proponent of intelligent
design, the controversial theory that evolution alone cannot explain
life's complexity
Monday September 12, 2005
The Guardian
John Sutherland: For Intelligent Design proponents such as yourself,
isn't Darwinism just another theory?
Michael Behe: Well, yeah, sure. But the question is: exactly how did
life get here? Was it by natural selection and random mutation or was
it by something else? Everybody - even Richard Dawkins - sees design in
biology. You see this design when you see co-ordinated parts coming
together to perform a function - like in a hand. And so it's the
appearance of design that everybody's trying to explain. So that if
Darwin's theory doesn't explain it we're left with no other explanation
than maybe it really was designed. That's essentially the design
argument.
John Sutherland
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/4d05b04ecbf4b36e
Michael Behe
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/92b8b42086973adf
.
|
|
| User: "Craig T" |
|
| Title: Re: A design for life |
12 Sep 2005 05:35:29 AM |
|
|
"JS: Is there a discourse problem here? Metaphysics can't engage
meaningfully with physics? Does intelligent design belong in science?
MB: I believe it does. I see it as straightforward empirical
observation. One analogy I like to use is to Mount Rushmore. If you had
never heard of Mount Rushmore, you would see immediately the images of
four people and immediately recognise that to be design. There wouldn't
be any question of metaphysics there. You can tell that something was
designed from its physical structure. In fact, Richard Dawkins himself
says exactly the same thing in The Blind Watchmaker."
What is Behe's take on the "face" on Mars? Intelligent Design or random
chance?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: A design for life |
12 Sep 2005 05:08:07 PM |
|
|
"Craig T" <craig.tevis@fortbend.k12.tx.us> wrote in message
news:1126521328.989289.113590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
"JS: Is there a discourse problem here? Metaphysics can't engage
meaningfully with physics? Does intelligent design belong in science?
MB: I believe it does. I see it as straightforward empirical
observation. One analogy I like to use is to Mount Rushmore. If you
had never heard of Mount Rushmore, you would see immediately the
images of four people and immediately recognise that to be design.
There wouldn't be any question of metaphysics there. You can tell that
something was designed from its physical structure. In fact, Richard
Dawkins himself says exactly the same thing in The Blind Watchmaker."
What is Behe's take on the "face" on Mars? Intelligent Design or
random chance?
What would be his conclusion if, instead of carving a mountain into
recognisable human faces, an unknown sculptor carved a mountain into a
different mountain?
--
This is not the wittiest sig file in the world...
It's just a tribute.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cyde Weys" |
|
| Title: Re: A design for life |
12 Sep 2005 05:14:45 PM |
|
|
Graham Douglas wrote:
"Craig T" <craig.tevis@fortbend.k12.tx.us> wrote
What is Behe's take on the "face" on Mars? Intelligent Design or
random chance?
What would be his conclusion if, instead of carving a mountain into
recognisable human faces, an unknown sculptor carved a mountain into a
different mountain?
Well *****, that's genius! All of that crap I learned about mountain
stratiagrophy in geology can go right out the window now. The solution
is obvious. Mountains are carved into more complex mountains from less
complex mountains!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: A design for life |
12 Sep 2005 08:16:51 PM |
|
|
Cyde Weys wrote:
Graham Douglas wrote:
"Craig T" <craig.tevis@fortbend.k12.tx.us> wrote
What is Behe's take on the "face" on Mars? Intelligent Design or
random chance?
What would be his conclusion if, instead of carving a mountain into
recognisable human faces, an unknown sculptor carved a mountain into a
different mountain?
Well *****, that's genius! All of that crap I learned about mountain
stratiagrophy in geology can go right out the window now. The solution
is obvious. Mountains are carved into more complex mountains from less
complex mountains!
That's the sound of the designer working on a chain ga-a-ang.
--Jeff
--
Often war is waged only in order to
show valor; thus an inner dignity is
ascribed to war itself, and even some
philosophers have praised it as an
ennoblement of humanity, forgetting the
pronouncement of the Greek who said,
"War is an evil in as much as it produces
more wicked men than it takes away."
--Immanuel Kant
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: A design for life |
17 Sep 2005 02:52:44 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
A design for life
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1567967,00.html
John Sutherland meets Michael Behe, a leading proponent of intelligent
design, the controversial theory that evolution alone cannot explain
life's complexity
Monday September 12, 2005
The Guardian
John Sutherland: For Intelligent Design proponents such as yourself,
isn't Darwinism just another theory?
Michael Behe: Well, yeah, sure. But the question is: exactly how did
life get here? Was it by natural selection and random mutation or was
it by something else? Everybody - even Richard Dawkins - sees design in
biology. You see this design when you see co-ordinated parts coming
together to perform a function - like in a hand. And so it's the
appearance of design that everybody's trying to explain. So that if
Darwin's theory doesn't explain it we're left with no other explanation
than maybe it really was designed. That's essentially the design
argument.
If there's intelligent design, where did the designer come from?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1572080,00.html
Saturday September 17, 2005
The Guardian
The intelligent design argument (The ideas interview, G2, September 12)
has been around for centuries and is no more valid now than when it was
first proposed. St Anselm outlined a version in The Proslogion, almost
1,000 years ago. Evolution has taken place over billions of years and
Michael Behe accepts that the evolution of complex organisms can arise
from simple ones. Surely the same is possible at a molecular level. The
search for a designer stems at an emotional level from a desire not to
be alone and at an intellectual level from the inability to explain how
something like the universe can come from nothing. Intelligent design
offers us comfort only at the emotional level because at an
intellectual level it fails to explain where the designer came from.
John Sutherland
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/4d05b04ecbf4b36e
Michael Behe
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/92b8b42086973adf
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
