Replies

". . . If, biology (and evolution) lead to design, as you put it... Where did the necessity of this evolution come from? . . ."

Well I do believe the best evidence yet produced indicates that evolution leads to design, but I was not the one who put it that way first, as you reference in my post. That specific hypothesis comes from the authors of the article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which was discussed in the opening post of this thread.

I find it interesting that these guys are heroes on the cutting edge of true science as they were introduced as supposedly supporting I.D. and, after it has been made clear that they do not, their viewpoints suddenly become heresy. All of the points you raise with me in your post should also be addressed to those same scientists whose work was cited at the beginning of this thread. That is not "double-speak," as you put it. It is simply a presentation of the arguments two of those scientists, Doyle and Kurata, are advancing in their own work.

Or do you think I made those quotes up on my own?

I find it interesting that these guys are heroes on the cutting edge of true science as they were introduced as supposedly supporting I.D.

Actually their non-support I.D. has been freely acknowledged. "This is a powerful affirmation of intelligent design theory from scientists outside the I.D. camp."

Evolutionary thought subscribes to the notion that designed entities can come into being apart from a designer. As such it is better qualified as a philosophy than as science. The references to evolution in the article above are indeed incidental. I would not be surprised if they were thrown in so that the author(s) could keep a chair at the university.

Thank you for the pings to your posts!

But truly, the point of this article is that the researchers (the subject article of this article) have evidenced design (engineering) in biological systems.

Physical causation (evolution) is the presumption of the researchers which is disputed by this article. The evidence of design does not "prove" evolution as the cause.

IOW, analysts routinely embrace evidence while dismissing prejudices applied to or conclusions previously drawn from that evidence. Data does not come with "strings attached".

To the contrary (applying Occam's Razor) this article asserts the researchers' evidence points more directly to intelligent design as probable cause. On that point, I strongly agree. To assert evolution as the cause, the researchers would also have to have shown how information, autonomy, semiosis and complexity arose from non-life.