Stephen E. Jones wrote:
[A good example of how metaphysical
>naturalists can look straight at design, even study it in detail for years,
>and still not see it. Because naturalists' fundamental assumption is that
`nature
>is all there is', these molecular motors of "awesome efficiency", which far
>exceed the capacity of human intelligent designers to make, are simply
>assumed to be "a good example of nature's innovation: evolution has taken
>a single fundamental mechanism and elaborated on it". How a `blind
>watchmaker' could ever put together *three* such motors (remember
>"there are no similarities in their ... genetic sequence") is not stated,
>nor is how a cell could even exist in the first place without them?]
It's an example of convergent evolution, different organisms with
different genes having analogous phenotypes; a familiar concept.
As to putting together organic parts, the symbiotic theory of the origin
of cellular complexity seems to fill the bill.
Consider the complexities of our economy; consider the various ways
we spend money and the complex reasons for the choices we make,
where the money goes next and why etc etc. It's an unfathomably elaborate
thing. Then compare the economy a communist planner might set up,
with simple specification of required production and directed consumption.
Why is a designer required on grounds of complexity, when the natural order
can generate complexity ad infinitum?
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 19 2000 - 06:01:58 EDT