let us face it: not being able to answer a question is no excuse for giving an answer that is false. I think that contemporary biology supports the claim that intelligent design is a false answer (Emile Zuckerkandl's "Intelligent design and biological complexity," Gene, Vol. 385, 2006, p. 4)
Being urged to keep an open mind about whether there has or has not been biological evolution is a comical invitation. It is equivalent to being urged to keep an open mind about whether the earth is flat or round, to consider that matter critically. (p. 3)
in the case of the phenomenon of evolution intelligent design not be presented as a scientific alternative, because it isn't. Intelligent design is a consideration extraneous to science that cannot affect science in the slightest. The effects of the results of science on religion are in some ways considerable, if slow in making their way; the effects of religion on the results of science are nil and can only be nil. (p. 3)
The observations in question definitely do not suggest that living systems have been built up thanks to the insights and decisions of a master engineer. Rather, the observations testify to a vast amount of continuous tinkering by trial and error with macromolecular interactions. The results of this tinkering are often retained when they can be integrated into the organism's functional whole. But why would God tinker? Doesn't He know in advance the biological pathways that work? Isn't a tinkering God one who loudly says "I am not"? And why would He say so if He existed? (p. 10)
Source: Emile Zuckerkandl's "Intelligent design and biological complexity," Gene, Vol. 385, 2006, pp. 2-18.
No comments:
Post a Comment