Sunday, April 26, 2009

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

2 comments:

  1. 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

    ReplyDelete