Saturday, January 27, 2007
Evolution vs ID vs Descartes: Part 2: QED
If you haven't read part I: here is what happened:
In looking at networks of protein protein interactions, many single points of failure (SPF) appear, cancer seems to be linked. If someone designed nature, why would SPF's appear?
SPF's are also linked to evolution. If a network fails, the individual fails resulting in negative selection of its genome from the population, that is evolution.
Ok, so if you are still with me, at this point I will ask you go into a suspension of disbelief for a second and you won't regret it. Follow me, this is going to be surgically quick, I am going to basically prove that Evolution vs ID IS A RED-HERRING of a discussion.
a/ there is no designer,
in which case there is no intelligent design, end of discussion.
b/ there is a designer,
AND "it" designed SPF in protein networks.
c/ there is a designer
AND "it" has not designed these SPF.
I will focus on case b/ as I have no good argument for case c/ except to say "it" is really sloppy.
SPF imply evolution.
"It" has designed SPF, Therefore, "it" has designed evolution.
Case b implies: EVOLUTION WAS DESIGNED. QED
I am done,
If you are still with me, what I just said is that
IF THERE IS A DESIGN, AND THE DESIGN INCLUDED THE PROTEIN NETWORKS THEN THAT DESIGN INCLUDES EVOLUTION!
IF (ID) then (evolution is designed) == true
Got it? evolution vs intelligent design is a red-herring. They are not discussing issues at the same level. If there is "intelligent design" then SPF's were designed.
It is my intimate scientific convinction at this point that the discussion is waste of time. Evolution is a fact, those that believe in ID and design must necessarily recognize that evolution was designed as well.
Go pick a fight with someone else. And get educated, we may have evolved from monkeys, we don't need to behave like monkeys.