James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by David Turell , Monday, July 06, 2009, 14:45 (5617 days ago) @ John Clinch

"However, DT seems to be trying as hard as he can, via "rare earth" and "complex chemistry" claims, to find evidence to suggest it is that improbable.
> You are corrct. That is my intention".
 
> Then I say that you seem to be starting with your conclusion and retro-fitting the evidence that supports it. I'm not saying you are a pseudoscientist, but that's what they do. - You are correct again in a partial way, from my viewpoint. Prior to and like Antony Flew, I reviewed the evidence and changed from agnostic to belief in a universal intelligence imbedded within and without the universe. With my scientific training I feel I have the right to read a study, and its findings, and reach my own conclusions, which may be partially different than the author. Scientific facts do allow different interpretations. - Basically I feel that living organisms are too complex to have invented themselves. My prediction is that when 'junk DNA' is found to be filled with organizing interference RNA, as is happening now in biological research, the overwhelming complexity will present a picture so complex as to enormously reduce the probabilities that natural selection did it. After all natural selection is a passive purposeless process, using whatever forms or biochemicals are presented to it to have a competition decide the issue of what survives. The following example supports my prediction: - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090705131759.htm - And this sort of research is appearing daily. Watson/Crick's discovery of how DNA coded for protein was only the tip of the iceberg of complexity. Something had to manage organization and provide building plans. Those plans are mainly in RNAs.