Sunday, April 26, 2009

Lazy answers, don't know it? Call it god.


tina FCD said...


Cole said...

I think this is especially true with the intelligent design movement that argues for I.D. by emphasizing the inability of natural selection to generate irreducibly complex systems in a gradual stepwise evolutionary process. Because natural process can't explain irreducible complex biochemical systems, they must be designed.

I view this approach as a God-of-the gaps argument-illigitimately evoking God as the explanation whenever science cannot account for some feature or process in nature.

This form of intelligent design rests on a lack of understanding and so I reject the I.D. of the intelligent design of Michael Behe and others. I do believe, however that a good case can be made for intelligent design of the living cell based on what we know and not on what we don't understand.

A few examples would be:

1. Chicken-and-egg systems
2. Fine-tuning
3. Optimization
4. Biochemical information systems
5. Structure of biochemical information
6. Biochemical codes
7. Genetic code fine-tuning
8. Quality control
9. Molecular convergence
10. Strategic Redundancy
11. Trade-offs and intentional suboptimization