The questions were brief. But harder to answer than I imagined. I guess thats why behe didn't reply. He didn't have time to go into detail he couldn't just give yes or no answers or 1 sentence answers or whatever. And he'd have to think more.

True enough. It doesn't matter now anyway. We've established that IC isn't a proven theory but I still maintain there is an inference of design when we look at structures like the flagellum, and I know you all think it just seems that way. We'll have to agree to disagree.

regards

Catherine

Most ID proponents like Behe do accept evolution but when it comes to understanding evolution at a molecular level he is lost.He apparently does not understand irreducible complexity in evolutionary terms or how that is even possible.

(November 14, 2008 at 9:24 am)CoxRox Wrote: True enough. It doesn't matter now anyway. We've established that IC isn't a proven theory but I still maintain there is an inference of design when we look at structures like the flagellum, and I know you all think it just seems that way. We'll have to agree to disagree.

regards

Catherine

Considering how many different kinds of living organisms there on this planet, some are bound to look even more designed than normal though! Aren't they.

(November 14, 2008 at 9:24 am)CoxRox Wrote: ...I still maintain there is an inference of design when we look at structures like the flagellum

I agree completely. The question still remains though: who was the designer? Evolutionary theory points to nature as being the designer, whilst I.D points to nobody, a supposedly "hidden" being. Now which sounds more realistic???

I've said earlier on in a different thread that just because things might seem to appear designed because of how our brains work (we tend to see order, patterns, purpose etc), it could still be that they look designed because they are. The idea of a supernatural Creator being unrealistic or improbable, is deduced by the same reasonings that are used to deny design. I think our reasoning abilities are limited and we can tie our selves up in all kinds of arguments, fallacies, mathematical probabilites etc. I think science will discover more about the origins of life and we may see more answers in our life-time hopefully.

And of course, throughout this entire discussion we have ignored the fact that for every "design" in nature, there are hundreds more examples of "bad design".

Yes I say that nature looks exactly as it would if there were designer. There are bound to be some things that look better designed than others anyway.
Things look how they would if non-random natural selection was the 'designer' although its not really 'design' in the sense us humans normally use the word. Because its not deliberate its automatic totally natural, automatic and mindless. Nature doesn't need to 'think' to select. Its bound to happen.

'A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different.' - Richard Dawkins.

I agree Adrian in my view there is no design in nature.There are many examples in nature where things are evolved out of seeming chaos.If the big bang is true that is a perfect example.Not to mention all of the flaws in nature and seemingly useless designs in several species of animals.Birds with wings that dont fly etc.

Adrian, what do you consider as 'bad designs'? Thinking of a chicken that can't fly, I don't see it as a bad design. Who says that all birds have to fly? They seem to do pretty well on the ground, not to mention their eggs which we utilise to great effect. It's possible their wings used to be larger and due to mutations they became stunted? They seem to do just fine.