Bloo wrote:Interesantan komentar
I think by “Intelligent design” you actually mean “theistic evolution”. In its purest form theistic evolution accepts the scientific consensus on evolution but adds the unfalsifiable claim that God did it. That may be good theology if you have a prior reason to believe in God, but it is not science.
In contrast intelligent design claims that evolution cannot explain the diversity and sophistication of life. That could almost be a falsifiable claim and all it takes to falsify it could be more a detailed explanation of evolutionary pathways. So far their arguments have been refuted. For example the bacterial flagellum probably evolved from the type 3 secretion system. So they modify their predictions and retreat. If ID had more interesting and useful predictions we could accept ID as at least a competing idea. But at present it is right on the verge of retreating into pseudoscience.
If the cosmological argument really worked it, it would provide a prior reason to believe in god – and presumably there would be no atheists. However it is at best a metaphysical argument that can in no way explored by science and at worst is powered by wishful thinking.
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2013/10/ ... evolution/
I think by “Intelligent design” you actually mean “theistic evolution”. In its purest form theistic evolution accepts the scientific consensus on evolution but adds the unfalsifiable claim that God did it. That may be good theology if you have a prior reason to believe in God, but it is not science.
sa
Inteligentno dizajniranom evolucijom vjernici nemaju problema.
So far their arguments have been refuted. For example the bacterial flagellum probably evolved from the type 3 secretion system.
nije tacno, jer ako cujemo sta kaze expert sa bakterijsku flagelu
sta kaze expert :
How do evolutionists explain away such exquisite design?
Scientific American tried to explain this amazing miniature motor by evolution, by claiming that the parts were ‘co-opted’ from other functions:
‘The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature …
‘In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. …
‘The key is that the flagellum’s component structures … can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution.’1
Scientific American’s argument is like claiming that if the components of an electric motor already exist in an electrical shop, they could assemble by themselves into a working motor. However, the right organization is just as important as the right components.
Dr Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho, a world expert on the flagellar motor, disagrees with Scientific American. He says that his belief that this motor has been intelligently designed has given him many research insights. Minnich points out that the very process of assembly in the right sequence requires other regulatory machines.2 He also points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can possibly be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new.
Finally, Dr Minnich’s research shows that the flagellum won’t form above 37°C; instead, some secretory organelles form from the same set of genes. But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacterium’s drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum. Minnich says that although it is more complex, the motor came first, so it couldn’t have been derived from them.3
See Minnich, S www.idurc.org/yale-minnich.html, 25 August 2003.
References
Parker, G., Graham, K., Shimmin D. and Thompson, G., Biology: God’s Living Creation, 2nd ed.,Pensacola Christian College, Florida, USA, pp. 597–598, 1997. Return to text.
Brown, W., In the Beginning: compelling evidence for Creation and the Flood, 7th ed., Center for Scientific Creation, Arizona, USA, pp. 17–18, 2001. Return to text.
Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, 8th ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, p. 2014, 1995. Return to text.
Smallest motor, americanhistory.si.edu/scienceservice/031005.htm, 25 Aug. 2003. Return to text.
