In article <o22Le.3953$qE.966931@juliett.dax.net>,
"Rolf" <rolf.aalberg@c2i.net> wrote:

Katt <katt@office.commm> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:LqtKe.2258$U36.1594@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...

"Lee Bowman" <lucifer@REMOVEcox.net> wrote in message
news:42fa59a0.86916098@news.west.cox.net...

Mindless, arbitrary, chance evolution could never produce the

artistic, purposeful, and balanced harmonious universe that exists.
Arguments against ID include finding fault with various biologic
mechanisms. The rationale is that a designer would have done things
differently? Oh really? First of all, those advocates (primarily
biologists), would like us to believe that their engineering skills
surpass that of any cosmic designer(s) that may be responsible for
these biologic mechanisms. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly,
their premise that any designed biologic structures should be

or at least better, belie their own ingrained prejudices that the
creator (if they believed there was one) would be perfect, and would
only design perfect life forms. It may be implied in various Holy
books that God is perfect, but that word, in and of itself, is
specious. There is no perfection in the universe, only

I am no biologist or scientist at all, but this looks like nonense to

There are just
too many examples of not even near-optimum 'designs' out there, to

for
anything like intelligence behind them. They rather look like the kind

kludges we
would expect if the features evolved.

The examples are numerous, but my laymans memory can only think of this

at
the moment: The way the sperm tubes from the human testicles make a long
detour
up and around the urine tubes before proceeding down to the outlet. This

just what
we would expect from an evolutionary POW, and is just the way we

view it.

I am certain a lot of other examples will be provided by other posters,

writing this
offline and don't know what may have been posted in the meantime.

Give me an example of anything that you deem 'perfect', and I will
either show you flaws, or at least alternate designs.

So rather than classify the esophagus as 'bad design', proposing
either a more highly placed trachea, a separate tube for food and

or a better designed epiglottis, why not admit that it's a pretty

compromise, and that its 'multi-functional' design is actually
'economical' engineering. If mammals evolved from fish, why did the
two passageways converge into one organ? If the gills became lungs,
why the merger with the digestive system? Is mindless evolution that
clever?

One more thing, then I'll quit. How did something like the clitoris
evolve? Let me guess. Due to random genetic variability, one just
magically appeared in a female, complete with its elaborate system

nerves (largest concentration of sensory nerves in the body).

of the added stimulation, this anthropoid was more willing to have
sex, and therefore tended to perpetuated the species more than

without this appendage. To mate with someone with the same genetic
propensity, she would have had to mate with one of her male

(but being that horny, I guess it's possible), and if the male had

same gene, their offspring, if female, might be born with a

I can only refer to Stephen Jay Gould's essay on the theme why men have
nipples and women
have clitoris, and you hopefully will realize how ignorant you reaaly

about the ToE. Further
reading required!

Survival of the fittest? Give me a break. The clitoris, like every
other biologic system, is 'design'. Possibly even 'intelligent'
design.

*
Of course!

Of what use is a half a *****?

earle
*
The opinions given here are my own, and not necessarily the opinions
of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study or the Alfred Nobel
Committee on Biology.

--Earle Jones

Mindless, arbitrary, chance evolution could never produce the
complex, artistic, purposeful, and balanced harmonious universe that
exists.

Once you prove this, then we can talk about who or what designed the
universe.

Who is not a question we can answer. It's also possible that the
universe came to be, not by efforts of life designers, but by another
mechanism, possible totally naturalistically.

Well, if the question is "unanswerable" then it's obvious that the
initial statement if ***** and meaningless as a basis for belief.

"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's
thoughts, lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions,
perpetrated through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."

Organized religion is totally different from a belief in guided
evolution, or 'Intelligent Design'.

I don't see anything in my statement that limits it to belief in "guided
evolution or intelligent design.



--
Woden

"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."

Lee Bowman wrote:

Human vocabularies are biased towards teleology: when we perceive
structure and function, we assume intent and design ...

... again, due to the presence of functional structures that interact
with other structures to produce observable function.

Unless we have independent evidence of a Designer (whether that be some
sort of Deity or wee green blobbies from Alpha Centauri), it makes no
sense to see structure and function, and make the unsupported leap to
"A Designer did it!"

Teleology makes sense in archeology because we have independent
evidence of humans.

"Function" is a matter of perception. When a pebble falls down a
hillside, was that the pebble's function? Was it the hill's function?

Some are simple, some multi level or interdependent, with or without
redundant functions. Teleology is still valid, I feel, although at
odds with evolutionary thought.

How? If I look at the parking lot, and see five bits of gravel arranged
in a straight line, should I simply assume that a Blugblatter Beast of
Traal was in the parking lot arranging pebbles for its own ineffable
reasons?

My objection to appeals to teleology is that the only evidence
presented for the existence of the Intelligence / Designer / Whatever
is the very phenomena we are trying to explain in the first place!

"How did life come to be? A Designer did it. How do we know the
Designer exists? We can examine the life it designed."

It's hopelessly circular.

The definition of ID is nebulous.

Not really. "We claim that this or that structure could not have been
produced by natural processes, so a Designer must have done it. And, lo
and behold, ID advocates are only shy about calling that Designer "God"
when speaking before Senate Panels or School Board meetings.

You really must define what 'intelligent' means in its definition.
This hasn't been done, and that leads to often specious criticisms.
For example, equating it with 'creationism' isn't valid, given a
strict definition of 'intelligent' as merely interventionary, and
'design' as unknown (we haven't a clue as to motive). It could even
be, "let's try this mutational change and see what it produces".

Even a cursory examination of the history of the Intelligent Design
movement reveals it to be merely the latest version of creationism, a
successor of "Creation Science" and similar attempts to acquire the
legitimacy of Science

without actually doing the hard work of
formulating and testing falsifiable hypotheses, formulating and testing
theories, and confirming one's ideas via independent verification and
peer review.

However, simple, unguided, iterative processes can produce
structures every much like those we see in nature.

In the case of a snowflake, yes. In the case of a complex biologic
structure, no.

So you assert. What evidence do you offer to support that assertion?

href="http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e28_3/lsys.html">L-Systems</a>

Index at: http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e28_3/lsys.html

are a good example. A set of relatively simple mathematical functions
are iterated to produce images that can easily be mistaken for
naturally occuring structures (ferns, trees, algae, etc.). A snowflake
certainly gives one a feeling of aesthetic intent, yet it, too, is the
result of simple iterated processes.

Still, no valid congruency, I feel. Fractals are generated images
plotted from mathematical functions. Some of the generated images
look like leaves, but an actual leaf consists of much more than a
overall image outline similarity. The morphological structure of the
leaf is non-existent in the fractal.

The key point is that simple rules (DNA) and multiple iterations of
simple processes (morphogenesis) can produce complex structures. The
parallel is clear, IMO.

In this light, biological organisms, including humans, look very much
like entities that were not designed, but rather the product of simple,
unguided, iterated processes.

I disagree. I recently studied my girlfriend's dachshund, and saw
artistic, as well as purely functional, aspects. I agree, that this
is highly subjective, and not proof of design.

From an engineering standpoint, the human body is a terrible kludge.
I've no doubt that dogs are similarly "ill-designed." Plus, dogs had
selection pressure placed on them by humans with the intent of
developing particular traits, so they make a bad example for your case.

You seem to be doing nothing more than making an Argument From Personal
Incredulity:

"I can't believe that life is the result of unguided processes, so an
Designer must have guided it."

Perhaps I'm simply missing your point: what evidence do you offer to
substantiate the claim that life is the result of some being's
intention?