Being purposely obtuse really won't help you acheive integrity any . ..... The mud puddle doesn't . So now your "sure looks like design" is nothing more a personal choice of what you decide is and isn't "designed" That something natural in the form of a mud puddle ,... .."doesn't seem designed in the first place" whilst a Universe does , is exposed as being based simply upon your personal feelings as a creationist.
Very nice, stu. I have Teleo on ignore but apparently he has stepped in the poop again. So a mud puddle doesn't appear designed but the universe does, eh? Ah, I see... Well, at least the believers disavowed science early in this thread.
Paul Davies, in his book The Fifth Miracle says: Stu and TraderNik don't see the difference between inferring an "elaborate factory production line" is designed and inferring a mud puddle is designed.
Scientists who support intelligent design by Anika Smith One of the more frequent questions people ask about intelligent design is whether any scientists actually support ID theory. There are many notable biologists, biochemists, physicists, and astronomers who support intelligent design, and their work continues to develop the young scientific theory. Here are just a few of them: Michael Behe has developed the argument for design from biochemistry and has published over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals. Ralph Seelke is a microbiologist at University of Wisconsin, Superior, who has researched Dr. Beheâs ideas in the laboratory, using mutant bacteria. Dr. Seelke explained how his lab work focuses on what evolution really can do in this intriguing podcast last year: http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2006-08-24T09_58_27-07_00 Scott Minnich is a microbiologist at University of Idaho who credits the design paradigm to leading to new insights in his lab research. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is a German geneticist who suggests that ID provides fruitful hints for giraffe research: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/a_tall_tale_of_evolution_the_n.html The argument for design isnât limited to biology and biochemistry; astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez has opened a new frontier for the ID paradigm with his arguments from cosmology. Dr. Gonzalez is a world-renowned astrobiologist and assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University. He has written nearly 70 refereed papers and is the co-discoverer of the Galactic Habitable Zone, which led to a cover story he co-authored in Scientific American and feature stories on Dr. Gonzalez in Science and Nature. These eminent scientists and scholars see merit in intelligent design theory. As they lead the way to scientific discovery, letâs hope their work is unimpeded by politically motivated science-stoppers.
Anika Smith is a recent graduate of Seattle Pacific University. She can be reached at anikas@spu.edu ... no wonder... obviously a very mature observer... no doubt...
Iowa State University Denies Tenure to Noted Scientist Who Supports Intelligent Design by John West Iowa State University has denied tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of The Privileged Planet, which presents powerful scientific evidence for the intelligent design of the universe. This is a very sad day for academic freedom. Dr. Gonzalez is a superb scholar and a fine human being. His research has been featured in Scientific American, Science, Nature, and many other science journals. Iowa State's decision to deny him tenure is a travesty, and the university should be held to account for its action. This deserves to be an even bigger story than the persecution of evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian. Ironically, Dr. Gonzalez arrived in America as a child refugee from Castro's Cuba. Unfortunately, he seems to have discovered that the Darwinist ideologues in America's universities can be nearly as unforgiving as the Marxist ideologues of his home country. Stay tuned for more information as this story develops.
'There are strong indications of intelligent design' Interview by Nick Jackson Stuart Burgess is Professor of design and nature in the department of mechanical engineering at Bristol University. He argues that intelligent design is as valid a scientific concept as evolution. Current scientific philosophy is to rule out completely the possibility that a creator was involved. But there is no scientific justification for making such a sweeping assumption. Science should always be open-minded. Newton, Kelvin, Faraday and Pascal had no problem with a creator and with design. There is no reason why a modern scientist cannot take the same position as these eminent scientists. Three hundred years ago, there was so much support for intelligent design that life could be difficult if you were an atheist. Now the opposite is true; life can be difficult if you show the slightest sympathy for intelligent design. Evolution cannot be taken as a fact of science because of the ambiguities in the evidence. The fossil record can be evidence for and against evolution because of the gaps. Similarities in DNA code can be just as much evidence for a common designer as for evolution. Most significantly, scientists have failed to reproduce the spontaneous generation of life for 60 years. I've been designing systems like spacecraft for more than 20 years. One of the lessons I've learned is that complex systems require an immense amount of intelligence to design. I've seen a lot of irreducible complexity in engineering. I have also seen organs in nature that are apparently irreducible. An irreducibly complex organ is one where several parts are required simultaneously for the system to function usefully, so it cannot have evolved, bit by bit, over time. The mammalian knee-joint is an organ that appears irreducible. Everyone has a four-bar linkage in their knee. Engineers know that for this to work, you need all four bars to be present. Every time we walk, we're using irreducible mechanisms. Evolutionists have not been able to explain how the knee joint evolved step by step. We cannot prove that an intelligent being designed these, but at present no one can prove that they evolved, either. There is a real difference between intelligent design and creationism. Creationism is about who the designer is and why he created the world. For this reason, I don't think creationism should be taught in a science lesson. But the question of intelligent design is completely different. It only addresses the question of whether an intelligent designer is needed for life to have been possible. The possibility of a designer should be mentioned, however briefly. I can understand that some people are worried about the implications of the existence of a creator, but it's not science to rule something out because you don't like the implications.
nick jackson?? same guy as this teleo? such an admirable scientist innit! "The advocates of evolutionary thought and theory would attempt to frame the debate as being between science and religion; that Darwinian evolution is âscientificÂEand that ID is âreligious.ÂEHe who frames the debate wins. The real battle is a war of worldviews between Godâs authority and manâs autonomous reason. If man becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth, and is able to discern moral truth apart from Godâs revelation, then man has become a law unto himself. This is lawlessness. Everyone is religious they either worship the creation (evolutionary proponents) or the Creator. (Romans 1:25) The Bible teaches that man has enough evidence in Creation and within his own conscience, and they will have to give an account when they die. âFor the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so they are without excuse.ÂE(Romans 1:18-20) Evolutionists have suppressed the knowledge of God in unrighteousness. For now evolutionists look like King Kong standing on a large tower of Babel. They are beating their chests in fury, and raising their fists in defiance against God, but they know that Darwinian evolution is failing as a theory, and they are desperate. Soon the King Kong of Darwinian evolution will plummet to the ground and Darwin will be but an interesting footnote in history. And then, what will be their excuse? © 2006 Nicholas Jackson - All Rights Reserved -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Jackson is a physical therapist from Ohio who assists pro-life and pro-family ministries in the Central Ohio area. He is executive director of Reform America, a Christian Activist organization based in Columbus. For more information on Reform America go to www.reformamerica.com E-mail: nick@reformamerica.com "
Talk about someone trying to shoot the messenger, in this case, the interviewer. Jackson is the interviewer of Stuart Burgess in the article posted. Read the very first lines of the article: Interview by Nick Jackson Published: 08 February 2007 Here is another interview by Jackson, just search for Nick Jackson and Independent UK. http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/article2246761.ece I don't know if you have the right Nick Jackson anyway...