We are now facing a new threat from nature. Our response is conflicted. At the same time rationally at a government level to contain the spread and accelerate searches for cures or vaccines, yet reacting on a personal level as if we are facing a material villain and one where many of us convinced the villain cannot be stopped. National emergency declared, yet store shelves are empty and people are hunkering down, many resigned to waiting for their turn.
Intelligent design is a counter claim against Darwin evolution of unsupervised random variation selected through natural survival at the species level. The intelligent design claim results from matching currently observed design processes (primarily from human designers) with the observed intricate machines found in biology. After the introduction of this proposal, most of the scientific endeavors have been to improve the arguments between design and randomness. I have suggested before that the design claim itself opens up a new question of identifying the designer. Random-variation advocates reasonably dismiss this question because the premise is wrong. Design advocates largely dismiss this question as either being already solved by a God hypothesis, or at best uninteresting because the primary battle is to argue against random variation. If science can identify a designer or an intelligent mechanism, then the design hypothesis will convince more people.
The design advocates often treat as a form of…
View original post 2,866 more words