RE: I want to believe!

["Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID)" <BBuchbinder at niaid dot nih dot gov>]

At Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:19 AM, James R. Phillips wrote:
> Hm, I don't usually post or even read this list, but now you've
> tempted me. 
> The original thread seems to have been back in April?  So perhaps you
> are referring to the recent buzz over ID (Intelligent Design); I
> guess it made the cover of _Time_.  
> 
> There are a lot of misconceptions regarding ID.  It isn't creationism
> at all; it is based on scientific methodologies used every day in
> fields such as anthropology or archeology.  An article you might want
> to look at outlining the controversy is   
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508030811.asp.
> 
> A pretty good concise summary of the theory is at
> 
> http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8543
> 
> Jim Phillips

(1) The "finding a watch on the beach implied a watchmaker" no longer holds.
Random events can result in innovation, at least with electronics, if not
with mechanical devices, which must fit perfectly to work.  See John R.
Koza, Martin A. Keane and Matthew J. Streeter (2003) "Evolving Inventions",
Scientific American, pp 52-59.

(2) Organisms are not all that well designed.  One example.  Having the
optic nerve traversing the retina to attach from "above" results (a) in a
blind spot in the retina where the nerve goes through, (b) in the nerves
shading the retina leading to slightly lower sensitivity, and (c) the
ability of the retina to detach from the eyeball, leading to blinds.
Another example: Having the paths that air and food/water must take to share
space and even cross over can lead to things going down the wrong way and
even to death.