(May 20, 2016 at 4:50 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:(May 20, 2016 at 3:26 pm)AAA Wrote: You're the one who thinks there is no evidence of design in nature. If you don't like their chapter titles, then take it up with them. They don't believe in intelligent design, but don't laugh when I say scientists think it has features of design. If they didn't want their chapter titles to be repeated, then they shouldn't have called them that. Are you seriously going to tell me that life doesn't have features of design?
No one outside of the Intelligent Design movement thinks that there's evidence of design in nature. Worse, you willfully try to use "appearance of design" as synonymous with "is apparently designed", when they are nothing of the sort. It's why I used the simple example of snowflakes, in our prior discussion on this subject, which can easily appear to be the intricate work of a specialized artist, but really are only the result of the way the electrons "orbit" around the water molecules at an angle.
We're baffled at the level of skull density it takes to think that the way he's (actually, the book has three authors, so I'm referring to whichever author or editor chose the chapter titles) using "Design" in the chapter headings of a biochemistry book indicate that life or DNA is literally designed by an Intelligent Designer.
RocketSurgeon, please listen to the words I'm about to say because I've said it before and you're still saying the same things. I KNOW THEY DON'T THINK IT WAS LITERALLY DESIGNED BY INTELLIGENCE. All I'm saying is that life does have features of design. Genuine or not, it has the characteristics of designed systems.