But not hard to the touch like glass, not a good conductor of heat, like
metal, and (in the case of a bird v. an airplane) more complex geometry
than an airframe -- but perhaps I'm nitpicking.
And about the other kinds of "molecular
>>machines" Behe discusses? Is there a difference in how we should regard
>>macroscopic objects like the airplane and microscopic objects which display
>>many of the same characteristics we "intuitively" associate with a designer?
>
Stan also wrote
>Also, your last sentence does NOT follow from what came previously. If the
>primitive people were simply reasoning that "nature cannot make such things",
>then they were not necessarily identifying WHO the designer was. They
>identified the fact of design *without* identifying the source.
Unfortunately that wasn't a good example. I think it's amusing and I
succumbed to trying to press it into service in a not-quite-appropriate
way. Still though, when I look at a watch I see some things I don't see in
nature: polished surfaces, wheels, gears, rotary bearings. That to me is
reasonable cause to postulate that at least the watch was designed by a
different designer from the one who designed, say, a tree. Another example
might be paintings. Someone familiar with Monet's style of painting can
look at a Monet he hasn't seen before and with fairly high reliability
identify that Monet is the probable painter. Or someone familiar with
architecture may be able to look at a house and judge that Frank Lloyd
Wright was the architect. We look at designs and see the characteristics
of the designer. That's different, I believe, from determining that an
object of unknown provenance, that does not exhibit the style of a known
human designer, was or was not designed. As Stan alluded above though, the
criteria I'm using for identifying human design aren't very useful in the
microscopic world. If I understand Michael Behe properly, he is not
arguing that design precludes evolution. He _is_ arguing that designed
objects do not come about by unguided random processes. I don't have a
problem with that, although I do recognize that design -- its presence or
its absence -- is not a simple thing to identify.
>****************************************************************************
>*********
>
Steve Clark added:
>One thing that seems to be lost in this debate of whether we should
>extrapolate our recognition of design in human-made things to believe that
>complex things in nature are also designed is that this really says nothing
>about the mechanism by which the complex things in nature arise. To believe
>that the eye is the result of intelligent design says nothing about the
>mechanism of its fabrication. When considering mechanisms, evolution
>remains a possible explanation. Thus, recognition of design in nature is
>not evidence against evolution.
>
Agreed. From a Christian perspective, I see the origins debate as two
parallel debates: one between Christians and non Christians about whether
God exists and is responsible for every aspect of the design and
functioning of nature, and one within the Christian community. But the
debate within the Christian community is over the _methods_ God uses and
the characteristic time scales of the natural processes which carry out His
designs.
Bill Hamilton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr, Ph.D. | Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems | General Motors R&D Center | Warren, MI
William_E._Hamilton@notes.gmr.com
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX) | whamilto@mich.com (home email)