Evolution or creation which is logical? Have you heard of the science of "biomimetics"?

Question

Simply put, it is copying some of nature's ways. Here are examples: (a) The seagull's wings was copied to make an aircraft of high maneuverability, (b) Mercedes Benz copied the low-drag design of a boxfish. THE QUESTION NOW IS THIS: If the copy requires an intelligent designer, what about the original? ( Asked by Awake! Sept 2006 issue)
Professor Behe, a noted bio-chemist, published an article re. complex molecular machine that led to the conclusion of a DESIGNER. And you know what the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AASS) did? It issued an appeal to its members to do everything in their power to FEND OFF THE IDEA THAT LIFE PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN? Why such an appeal? I thought that Scientific experiments should not be rigged but lead to the right conclusion.
So, 2 Question: ARE WE BEING BLINDED BY SCIENTISTS--like AASS to support their bias in favor of Evolution?

Answer 1

Those blinders are for much more than just to support the theory of evolution.
They are there to refute the existence of God.
For some reason, organizations like AASS are terrified of God.

EDIT:
Don gets my vote for the 10!
Well done, Don!

Answer 2

Concerning the debate going on about intelligent design and evolution: is it possible that the final answer about which of these two seemingly opposite ideas is correct could simply be yes?

With one position firmly held by the believers and the other just as fearlessly defended by the non-believers, if you happen to be in a position somewhere near the middle, it does not look all that complex. From this position, you wonder why either-or has to be the answer.

If you believe that some higher being created the universe by intelligent design, what more elegant and intelligent design could there have been than a self-regulating system that continually checks its own errors and makes its own corrections in mid-stream as an integral part of the process.

This all seems quite logical to me although it probably won’t satisfy the believers because they are afraid to see any truth other than the one they have been told to believe in. Inversely it certainly won’t satisfy the non-believers because it leaves them stuck with a god that they are so obviously terrified of.

To sum up this view from the center, it might be most easily be explained by saying perhaps the designer was intelligent. Problem is, the designer was likely so intelligent that those seeking to prove that it is intelligently designed may be incapable of ever understand it well enough to see it for the elegant self regulating design that it has always been.

The nonbelievers will be similarly handicapped due to the internal terror the have about the idea that there may be a God. Neither side being able to leave their entrenched position for fear they may have to admit they were wrong. While the rest of us stand by trying to figure out what all the fuss is about. Personally I don’t think anyone is wrong, I just feel both sides are about half right.

Answer 3

Look .... what about evolution leads to the belief that there is no intelligent designer? Isn't an "intelligent designer" (or whatever there was before there was everything) be just as likely to start things off and then allow things to go on the way they pleased? It's called change ... and there can be no life without change. If we were all made the way we are, how are we going to ever learn anything new? It doesn't make any sense.

And why in the world would an "intelligent designer" create something stagnant for all of eternity? Nothing in nature gives us the impression that our world is stagnant ... there is absoluletely NO PROOF WHATSOEVER in the real world for a belief in creationism.

All it is is some writings in a book that people have this strange desire to believe inside and outside of because they think otherwise, the "intelligent designer" will throw them in hell or some other bad place. All it comes down to is fear. That is all religion is ... and fear makes us do extremely stupid things.

...and I'm done.

Answer 4

Having worked on the design of aircraft for years, I know for a fact that we don't reference bird flight when we develop designs. The reason for the similarity is because both the aircraft and the bird are trying to do the same thing, create lift in air. This requires the same set of laws of physics, namely Bernoulli's Principle.

Evolutionwise, the airfoil shape is a probable result of millions of years of evolution to provide the reproductive advantage of flight. There weren't may other options for heavier than air living things. Most flying animals, and there are many, evolved from animals that used wing like structures for cooling.

Humans use physics to go well beyond the performance and behavior of inefficient living things. a mechanical device that flies like a bird, the ornithopter, exists but it is technically ineffiecient and overly complex for the task of moving things around. Airplanes may have parts that look like biological parts (if you use your imagination), but aircraft can move more things farther, higher and faster than any animal because the majority of their design is completely unlike a living thing--turbines, hydraulics, avionics, etc. Consider helicopters, the principles of their flight are completely unlike that of a living thing. Nothing biological can rotate appendaged 360 degrees will maintaining an independent body orientation. Consider cars and land vehicles. They too go farther, faster, carrying a greater load, but aside from some looks they share nothing in common with the land-roving animals -- no animal has wheels.

This poor attempt to substantiate intelligent design ignores the fact that the reason there are similarities in design is because humans face the same problems as genetics: the laws of physics and chemistry. This is why despite the diversity of animal life on earth, certain features are recurrent even between the phylums: sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste, flight, projectile motion, bouyancy, "chemical weaponry" etc. Evolution functions by perpetuating designs that handle the problems of the environment. The biggest set of those problems are what we call the scientific laws.

Answer 5

People have been trying to copy nature ever since people separated themselves from nature. Nature has evolved some pretty efficient ways to survive and theres a lot to learn.

Most scientists will approach research with a hypothesis in mind on how they THINK it will turn out but if the results are different they do not refute them but instead try to duplicate them. Religion has no place in science - you have to be totally open minded (I guess agnostics make the best scientists) If a religion wants to tout intelligent design then that's fine - but it doesn't have a place in the scientific community.

Answer 6

each and every fossil, each and every statement in biology factors to evolution. there is not any longer some thing that is going antagonistic to it or factors to a special thanks to scientifically clarify cutting-part variety. there is not any longer one fossil or one piece of DNA that does no longer element to evolution. it might want to be not easy no longer to work out the concrete information, and purely those blinded by using religion can try this. Evolution is one hundred% international-huge huge-spread certainty, which include the evolution of guy. there is 0 information for a more effective being causing some thing. it truly is the reason those who're non secular want faith, you won't be able to work out or study the moves of a deity, by using definition. Evolution has 0 faith and ALL information. Scientists (genuine ones) were reading and helping evolution for over 100 and fifty years, and nonetheless no longer some thing has pointed to creationism. there is sparkling links and transitional kinds between each and every thing interior the fossil record to the kind-relations element, if no longer Genus-Species element. And this incorporates human beings, which there are numerous 'lacking links' that are properly defined and studied, human beings only opt for to brush aside this. confident, there are nonetheless issues we do not comprehend, yet it truly is why technology isn't stagnent and useless. We study more effective each day, it truly is what takes position once you keep an open options and keep on with the clinical technique. There are some parts of evolution in which each and every of the products have not been got here upon interior the fossil record, yet there is not any counter theory that has even ONE piece of information which could no longer actual be defined by using evolution. enable me turn the question round, if Creationism changed into maximum magnificent and technology might want to definitively tutor Creationism (and subsequently the life of God), why might want to they no longer? that would want to be the properly ideal clinical discovery interior the heritage of the international. no man or woman might want to pass that as a lot as take care of the 'prestige quo'. there is not any conspiracy to cover creation information. all and sundry who knows genuine scientists knows they're glory-mongers first. They like to tutor others incorrect to make stronger their own status. And if any scientist might want to tutor creation/God, it might want to've been performed a lengthy time period in the past.

Answer 7

There once was a fish that lived 65 million years ago that science said walked on its fins on the bottom of the sea.This fish has not occurred in the fossil record since.
But they catch them off the coast of Madagascar.You can dive down and see them.They live no where near the bottom of the ocean nor do they walk on their fins.The fish is the Coelacanth.
If this fish could avoid the fossil record for 65 million years what else could?The fossil "evidence" is not what science presents it to be.It is presented as they want it to be.

Answer 8

No... you are being blinded by ignoramuses like Behe. His arguments are fallacious.

"The success of creationism depends on the scientific illiteracy of the general citizenry, which is why creationists do so well. Sophistry, by definition, is convincing to listeners who don't realize it's sophistry." Unfortunately, 95% of the USA population is scientifically literate; only 5% are sufficiently scientifically literate to recognise the specious arguments, misrepresentations and outright lies that comprise Behe's schtick.

"Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance. No real scientist would ever say, "this is so complex that it can never be explained by evolution, so I give up." Instead, a scientist would continue to formulate hypotheses to explain it and then test the hypotheses. Behe suffers from a very unscientific failure of curiosity, creativity, and nerve. Not only does he promote willful ignorance and pseudoscience, he encourages people to repress their intellectual curiosity--a moral lapse for a scientist!"

"Michael Behe, William Dembski, and their fellow creationists continue to maintain--against reason, evidence, and methodological naturalism--that biological complexity in nature is the result of intelligent design. The arguments they use--specified complexity and irreducible complexity--are contrived and specious, convincing only to individuals uninformed about logic, science, and scientific method. Unfortunately, that means they are convincing to 95% of the American population and the vast majority of public officials, school board members, state board of education members, US congressmen, etc., the very people creationists want to convince. Attempting to convince legitimate scientists (a minority of the remaining 5%), on the other hand, is not on their agenda, since that would require going out and actually gathering data, generating testable and falsifiable hypotheses, doing the arduous scientific work of testing the hypotheses, and publishing the results in the scientific literature. Rather than perform real science, they would rather indulge in pseudoscholarship, the indispensable foundation of pseudoscience."



P.S.: ahimsa said: "There are plenty of scientists who believe in the existence of God; Einstein for one !"

Hogwash: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."   ~ Albert Einstein

Answer 9

The last I heard, 55% of scientist did not believe in God.

When ever a non Christian scientist reads the facts and even comes close to something that the Bible says, many non believing scientist get irate.

We are being told a lot of lies based on non scientific answers (theories).

Answer 10

Funny how the "bias" that scientists show is based on facts, evidence and mountains of empirical data.

While creationists have what to fall back on? Oh yes, an outdated and irrelevant book of bronze age mythology. Nothing more.
Face it sparky, facts trump fantasy EVERY day of the week.

Ugh, did someone ACTUALLY say that Einstein believed in god? Oh man, back to the short bus, I think you forgot your helmet and drool bib back there. Moron.