[MacDorcha]

"Even so, many people remain ignorant of this fact and continue to naively believe that only intelligent planning can produce complexity and intricate processes"

Can only chance occurance and natural selection produce complexity and intricate processes?

It's a two-way street. Why should one be supported over the other if both are POSSIBLE? (We can ignore probability for the sake of this particular discussion due to the lack of a statistic provided for creationism)

[StJacques]

As a followup to my previous post, here are the relevant snippets of the two quotes in question.

From the description of the Post-Doctoral Fellowship position for which Hiroyuki Kurata chairs the search committee:

"In order to elucidate the design principle of a biological system, research is undertaken not only to determine molecular networks of existing living systems, but also to learn how they evolve, since evolution is a key trigger for the emergence of living systems . . ."

And from the abstract of the review of Doyle and Csete's Reverse Engineering of Biological Complexity:

"Advanced technologies and biology have extremely different physical implementations, but they are far more alike in systems-level organization than is widely appreciated. Convergent evolution in both domains produces modular architectures that are composed of elaborate hierarchies of protocols and layers of feedback regulation, are driven by demand for robustness to uncertain environments, and use often imprecise components. This complexity may be largely hidden . . ."

It is from those two quotes that you can see that the very same scientists whose work was lauded at the beginning of this thread make the argument that evolution leads to design. I didn't make that up on my own.