The most obscure factor in considering the origins of what we see today is something unsuspected by ID fans: the universe is not totally random. Definitions-wise, this means also that it is not truly random.

Consider: there are at least 4 forces known to determine the interactions of matter. These are the strong and weak nuclear forces, magnetism and gravity. Thus, material interacts with other material in ways that are not observed to differ, but in combinations/permutations of such a high number that it is difficult to visualize.

One of the sorriest examples of "ID logic", one that reveals the lack of this concept, is the "tornado building the Taj Mahal" argument, which holds that "chance" could not build such a complex structure. Yes, it can, because, as I have shown, at least four factors are not matters of "chance" -- and the process has all of time and all of space to do its work.

People in general don't understand large numbers. They even play the lottery - in which the terms are expressly defined by law - with entirely unrealistic expectations.

But they are happy to call gross ignorance of what happens everyday "the will of God", with a certainty totally without basis.

Odd that whenever someone is criticised for "playing God" they are doing nasty things. What does that tell you?

petty detail:

(italics, Amy's)

No need for the comma there.

Clarity, Kelly. And removing the word "are" to shorten it.

Odd that whenever someone is criticised for "playing God" they are doing nasty things. What does that tell you?

It's not at all surprising, Norm, considering what a nasty mofo god is in The Bible and other religious texts. How people could worship and admire such an obvious, ego-driven bastard is beyond me. And if there were a god, do you really think he'd be so immature as to need you to waste your time sitting around praying to him (or praying for a new car) instead of going out and doing something to improve this old earth?

People are so silly and naive. It's actually shocking that people in the 21st century are still so primitive in their thinking to believe that Zeus, sorry, god, has control over their existence.

See any evidence of god? You don't, do you. So why believe in god?

I'm a strong supporter of the scientific search for an explanation of the diversity and complexity of Life, and I utterly reject creationism and its derivatives. It so happens that I have a more-than-average knowledge of classical evolutionary theory, too.

However, I don't believe we've got it right yet. Here's my problem. All of the wonderful features of a working mammal are assumed to have evolved simultaneously. It's not like the primitive organism had the luxury of saying "Here's an idea -- let's evolve an eye. [20,000,000 years later] Great. Now let's work on perfecting the Krebs cycle..... Now let's take a shot at a testicle...etc".

No, the eye, the testicle, and all the zillion miracles of biology were all developing in unison, and I have a hard time imagining an "intermediate mammal" with a slightly MORE evolved eye but a slightly LESS evolved testicle having any advantage over its mates.

I have no alternative theory to propose. I guess my plea to molecular biology is "I think you're on the right track. Keep working."

(my italics) would be even better, but why quibble?

Amy, question, and I wish I had thought of this for your radio call in appearance... I agree with you that the thought of a sentient God who answers prayers and controls destinies is ridiculous (and dangerous, thank you world religions bombing each other), but what's your opinion on spirituality? You know, when you look at a butterflies wings and see individual dusty hairs and are amazed, or when a musical passage cause the hairs on your arm and neck to stand up? I know it's just the cilia in my ear canal being stimulated, but it just feels like more than that, you know? Like seeing a child in a wheelchair and being brought to tears because of it.

Stu, I'd be interested in seeing where you got the idea that all of those things "evolved simultaneously".

And everyone can go to http://darwiniana.org and spend years reading the information and following the links there.

Everyone please realize that "evolution" is NOT the interplay of "chance". Sometimes people forget that only success is rewarded with survival, even as mutation (there's your permutations and combinations again) continues.

> I'd be interested in seeing where you got the idea...etc

It follows from a not-too-rigorous study of molecular biology. The human genome is around 25,000 distinct genes. Since they are normally handed down the generations unchanged, any evolution at the molecular level has to arise from mutation, which may be good, bad, or neutral.

The key point is that mutagenesis is not going to hold off and wait while the eye evolves, before moving on to the next great invention. Even as the eye is gradually evolving in a population of organisms, the good/bad/neutral process of mutagenesis marches on, in genes that have no relation to vision.

So it is spirituality when the body goes through a basic physiological reaction to various forms of stimuli???

I would feel bad for the kid in the wheelchair, but where is the spirituality connection?

In the connection that I fell to the child, the butterfly, the sound.

Sorry, feel.

I don't see why religions have it in for good old materialism - by which I mean the philosophical theory that matter is the only reality, not the desire for wealth and material possessions etc. Matter is amazing stuff. How wonderful that it can produce everything from galaxies to genomes; that we, who are pure matter, have consciousness, creativity, understanding and appreciation of the beauty of the universe.

Actually, I guess I do see why religions - and most people - have it in for matter. They can't see the possibilities of 90-odd elements, and rather than put some thought into understanding how complexity arises from simplicity, prefer to "explain" complexity by invoking even greater complexity. Thus, we have gods, spiritualism, and animism in various forms. Personally, I find the idea of Mozart as Matter to be rather more mind-blowing.

what's your opinion on spirituality? You know, when you look at a butterflies wings and see individual dusty hairs and are amazed, or when a musical passage cause the hairs on your arm and neck to stand up? I know it's just the cilia in my ear canal being stimulated, but it just feels like more than that, you know? Like seeing a child in a wheelchair and being brought to tears because of it.

The child in the wheelchair you feel empathy for.

Being amazed by nature -- it really is as Norman says it so well above -- it's just well-arranged matter. Which doesn't mean I don't swoon at Mozart's work, especially. I do.

The need to apply fantastic explanations, based in nothing, is what really boggles me. Why can't people just accept what I do: I don't know, and until I do, I'm not going to immaturely assign: "Zeus did it!" or attribute to any more popular modern figures.

'So it is spirituality when the body goes through a basic physiological reaction to various forms of stimuli???'

Religion teaches that physical pleasure is evil, so it follows logically, that your pleasurable reaction to the beauty of nature and music, is evil.

This really illustrates how religion tries to have things both ways, and has no logic at all.

Exactly. Religion is based on the willingness of the "flock" to ignore the ridiculous contradictions in favor of, among others, the ridiculous notion that there's a place called heaven, and they'll get there if only they give enough dough to the church and accept Jesus as their savior. A nutter once told me if Adolph Hitler accepted Jesus he could get into heaven, but as an atheist, I'd probably be sent to hell. Makes total sense -- if you're a raving lunatic, or extremely gullible, as all people who truly believe in god have to be.