>We find a chaos of the useful and the non-useful in the genes, for
> >example.
Do you know for sure they are non-useful? Or has there merely not been a
discovered usage of them yet?
>No, design in nature is an illusion of the same sort that causes some
> >people to see the Virgin Mary in the water stains on the sides of
> >buildings, and bunny rabbits in clouds, and "irreducible complexity" >in
>molecules, and some to believe that other people are secretly >plotting
>against them.
Care to verify the links between all of these and the assertion they are
illusions? (specifically the irreducible complexity and design in nature)
>You can "see" design in absolutely anything, if you set your mind to >it,
>or if you are predisposed to confuse pattern and structure with >design,
>and if you are willing to suspend objectivity (or are unable >or unwilling
>to achieve it).
Or if it's actually there. How do you rule that out?
Jason
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com