[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
In any event, nature shows no design-unless you are going to appeal to the unknown and commit a logical fallacy.

Well, I certainly think I have good reasons for at least suspecting that certain evolutionary trajectories were rigged. Even an atheist like Richard Dawkins states:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This quote is short and out of context. One of the main problems I have with 'creation science' advocates is this selective short quotes out of context followed by long detailed quotes from people like Crick below. For a more detail scienific refutation of Crick and others read 'Abusing Science' by Philip Kitcher.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Francis Crick says:

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”

Maybe the reason life looks designed and is able to evolve is because life was designed to evolve. To help me research this possibility I can look to engineering on one hand, and physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, and astronomy on the other hand. Then, I simply ask into which of these hands is life a better fit. It is my position that life better fits in the class of things known to be designed through intelligent intervention. Here's why:

(1) The study of life is much more like the study of engineering than any other field of science. This is clearly seen from the fact that teleological language and concepts are very important in biology and engineering, but essentially missing from the other fields of science. If life is designed, this makes much sense. Molecular biology helps itself liberally to teleological concepts ("messengers," "codes," "proofreading," etc.). It must do so because nothing makes sense in the cell except in the light of functional logic. But molecular biology certainly does not explain the source of that functional logic. Without teleological concepts and terminology biological research would come to a screeching halt.

(2) Over the last few decades, the more we have learned about cell biology and molecular biology, the greater has grown the distance between chemistry and biology. Biological states are high information states and biological processes depend crucially on these high information states. Thus, in order for life to exist, we find such things as codes, sophisticated molecular machines, proof-reading of information, and quality control mechanisms. In the entire known non-living universe, such things are found only in artifacts and given that these things are at the very heart of life, the significance of the similarity is profound. In fact, note carefully the conclusions of physicist Paul Davies:

"If I am right that the key to biogenesis lies, not in chemistry, but with the formation of a particular logical and informational architecture, then the crucial step involved the creation of an information-processing system, employing software control. I argue that this step was closely associated with the appearance of the genetic code. Bringing some of the language of computation to the problem, I have endeavored to throw light on the highly novel form of complexity that is found in the genes of living organisms. This peculiarity of biological complexity makes genes seem almost like impossible objects - yet they must have formed somehow. I have come to the conclusion that no familiar law of nature could produce such a structure from incoherent chemicals with the inevitability that some scientists assert. If life does form easily, and is common throughout the universe, then new physical principles must be at work."

Where in chemistry, astronomy, or geology do we find essential information-processing systems employing software control??

I maintain that (1) and (2) constitute a positive case for life being designed to evolve. While these reasons may be insufficient as proof, or even to generate a widespread consensus, they are sufficient to form a working hypothesis.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I already responded to the modern view of the 'chaos model' that shows the events of existence are not random or by chance whether you believe in a creation by design or not. The linking of proteins into chains is neither to complex nor to difficult for it to happen naturally. This has been demonstrated in the lab. The nature of forming protein chains into the genetics of simpler organisms like virus' and the progression to the more complex genetics of complex follows a predictable pattern. We had billions of years for these events to take place. No problem and no hurry.