This Google Ocean image is 620 miles off the west coast of Africa near the Canary Islands. It is over 15,000 feet deep and the feature of interest is about 90 miles on a side or 8000 square miles.
In another thread ID critics complain there is no rigorous definition or mathematical formula by which everyone can agree on whether or not something exhibits complex specified information. Believe it not, they say it like mainstream science isn’t chock full of things that not everyone can agree upon.
It is relatively unusual that a physical scientist is truly an atheist. Why is this true? Some point to the anthropic constraints, the remarkable fine tuning of the universe. For example, Freeman Dyson, a Princeton faculty member, has said, “Nature has been kinder to us that we had any right to expect.” Martin Rees, one of Stephen Hawking’s colleagues at Cambridge, notes the same facts. Rees recently stated “The possibility of life as we know it depends on the values of a few basic, physical constants and is in some respects remarkably sensitive to their numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences.” Science writer extraordinaire Paul Davies adds “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. . . It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. . . The impression of design is overwhelming.” Some scientists express surprise at what they view as so many “accidental occurrences.” However, that astonishment quickly disappears when one sees purpose instead of arbitrariness in the laws of nature.
In an Op-Ed piece entitled “Darwin, Intelligent Design, and Freedom of Discovery on Evolutionists’ Holy Day” in U.S. News and World Report, Casey luskin said this:
The more we discover about the cell, the more we are learning that it functions like a miniature factory, replete with motors, powerhouses, garbage disposals, guarded gates, transportation corridors, and most importantly, CPUs. The central information processing machinery of the cell runs on a language-based code composed of irreducibly complex circuits and machines: The myriad enzymes used in the process that converts the genetic information in DNA into proteins are themselves created by the process that converts DNA into proteins.
The problem for Darwinists is obvious: The simplest cell won’t function unless this basic machinery is intact, so how does such complexity evolve via
a “blind” and “undirected” Darwinian process of numerous, successive, slight modifications?
Imagine coming upon Stonehenge for the first time, an your companion says, “What’s so special about that? It’s perfectly possible that natural selection through random slight variations could explain that quite well.
Or take this one: (Look closely – someone has monkeyed with the original!)
Can anyone seriously think for a moment that this just popped up by ramdom forces?
Yet against every ounce of instinct and common sense, we’re told to believe that this really is just the result of those random accidents! Some have looked at this and concluded that there is no design inference, or that if there is, that “random design” was the cause. Maybe that’s right, but do they know, or are they just unwilling to consider a non-materialist explanation?
I don’t know what made any of these designs, but it strikes me as absurd that any of them should be considered anything other than designed.
But that’s me.