You are not paying attention. Molecular machines are not chemical processes they are literal machines! One more time: This peer-reviewed article is saying that the F1-ATPase enzyme IS a tiny engine. It isn't saying that it is a chemical process that "behaves" like an engine. Chemical processes don't "behave" like engines. Since when do chemical processes have parts that resemble pistons and a drive shaft? Right. Scientists would never have conceived of an engine from observing chemical processes but scientists are mimicing the nanotechnology found in biology to design nano-scale machines. That's possible because the molecular machines in nature are actual machines and not chemical processes. One more time. Design is the prima facie interpretation when confronted with a machine. You have provided no good reasons why one should not consider molecular machines to be literal machines.
As an occultist I can tell you the universe is an expression of the absolute's self awareness.. god is pure living mind and all that we perceive including the universe and ourselves is the stream of consciousness from that one mind which is all that was, is and will ever be It's not about design.. it's about awareness
OK T. See, it's things like this that put up a red flag which has, "DOH!" written across it. So, I'll leave it to Dembski et al, to attempt to muster their way to credibility. That is of course, once they get past crying about the atheist or mainstream conspiracy theory against them and using likely excuses for not submitting peer review articles of their own. Objectivity would do wonders for the ID camp. Also, if they want to pretend it's science, all they have to do is gather some data from which they can make predictions from and then go out and test those predictions. You know, like how their competition does. Sobedoobedo, I don't know what your religious background is and that's your business anyway. But you obviously do have one. I can see it when you favor illogical or irrational things over rational things. I can only suggest, for what it's worth, that you try to be happy with having faith in whatever or in whoever and don't try so hard to justify it. It's ok to believe God did it. (And don't gimme that Dembski nonsense "or maybe aliens too." He's so transparent.) Peace.
Really funny. The Darwinists think the ability of man to design something is itself a fluke and a product of non design. It is so bloody obvious that man's ability to design came from nature, but they can't handle the idea that man's ability to design is by design... Just programming, and you don't even need to know the programmer to see the programs that are running...
Yeah, right. When you're losing an argument play the religion card. As if your metaphysics don't play an important part in how you interprete the evidence concerning design. It wasn't a religious person that coined the term "molecular machine". And you haven't presented a shred of evidence that demonstrates a "molecular machine" isn't a literal machine. It is perfectly logical and rational to suspect a machine to be the product of design. Even your old atheist pal Richard Dawkins says: If things in nature appear designed to an atheist then why is it illogical or irrational to suspect they may in fact be designed?
Dembski has always been upfront that he believes the designer to be God. He merely claims that this can't be established via the logic of ID.
What specific and distinguishing empirical predictions does the blind watchmaker hypothesis make that would not turn out true in the null hypothesis?
You think I've lost an argument? Only thing I lost is patience. And again, your interpretive skills are indicative of religious folk who typically tend to interpret things according to their desire. Like how you misinterpret Dawkins, Susskind, and Hawkings, persons who have clarified themselves after seeing how your camp twisted their meanings to suit your agenda. Pretty much how religious folk interpret their holy books to the degree that they can't even agree on the meaning of a single sentence of their holy books in or out of context. Par for the course. That's why I said, when your camp leader(s) come up with something credible, it'll be worth discussion. Because "appears to be designed" isn't all that useful until some objective criteria is drawn up that allows one to distinguish between what constitutes design and what doesn't. Unless of course you feel everything is designed, then naturally you wouldn't bother trying to come up with a criteria. You'll just curve fit everything you see into design theory. That criteria is minimally what seperates science from mere ideology. Bye bye now.
Very ironic... "and they worked as if thats what they naturally did." So then, to summarize what you are suggesting... 1. F1-ATPase is a machine 2. prima facie interpretation - All Machines are [intelligently] designed 3. therefore F1-ATPase is [intelligently] designed then, 1. MP-1 is a mud puddle 2. prima facie interpretation - All mud puddles are not [intelligently] designed 3. therefore MP-1 is not [intelligently] designed Are you going to tell the 5 year old who purposely made MP-1, she is not intelligent or she didn't design something. Try telling it to these guys who make mud pubbles for reason and design. It is illogical or irrational because it is a straightforward matter to improve on the simplism, "appear to have been [intelligently] designed" . Once you look and examine, there is no more reason to assume All machines "appear to be [intelligently] designed" than there is to assume - All mud puddles "appear not to be [intelligently] designed". Appearances can be very deceptive, ask the Porcupine who tried to hump a yard brush
"Appearances can be very deceptive" True, that which appears to be random could just as easily be by design and programming... As most of what happens in the natural world is following the programming of nature, to assume non programming for lack of knowledge of a specific programmer or programming force makes little sense...