This is not a design perspective. Rather it is mechanistic reasoning and used throughout biology.
How do you differentiate mechanistic reasoning from design? Design strategy to reuse systems and components is common.
Every biologist uses mechanistic reasoning, whether or not they believe life is designed. Mechanistic reasoning is just reasoning about the higher level behaivior of a system based on models of how individual parts interact, regardless of how the system as whole arose.
Evolution and intelligent design, ultimately, are claims about how the system arose, not about how the pieces operate together now.
I agree but you think differently about something that came together with intent and purpose then something which was simply the result of blind processes.
With blind and unguided processes I would not expect the reuse of working systems like the destruction mechanism in the ubiquitin system.
No where can science make claims that evolution had no divine intent or purpose. You are confusing silence with absence.
But science or its representation in our education system does. I remember the line from a biology text book.
“We have to remember that evolution has no foresight it is blind and unguided.”
The problem with the TOE is the claims are way ahead of the real science.
You need to argue that point on another website.
I don’t know any Christians on this site that are arguing for Blind Evolution!
The last time I looked, this site was not exclusive to Christians:-) What do you think Art Hunt is arguing for; guided evolution?
Unguided is what it appears like from a human, scientific point of view. Science is limited though. It cannot speak of God, the one whose foresight intended us. Not seeing Him, of course it appears without it foresight.
Outside science though we can consider God and find that science is not the whole story. You are mistaking silence for absence.
Not it all. We have sequences here. There is no evidence that blind and unguided can create a functional sequence. This is a false claim, and I agree with you is beyond the reach of science.
Except we have seen these sequences evolve in experiments we run. How do you tell if an experiment is guided or unguided by God?
I agree with you that you cannot.
What we don’t have is an enzyme forming by random change from scratch in the lab. The lenski experiment was able to translate an existing enzyme by a gene duplication but this is very different then creating one in the lab from scratch.
This is just the beginning of the problem claim that a genome could be formed by blind and unguided processes. There is no scientific basis for this claim.
Except we have seen this.
Regardless, how would you know if God did it or not? If God is making new enzymes in species all the time, how would you know he is not doing it in a test tube?
We have observed it in the wild in the emergence of new complex enzymes from non-coding regions. @art posted a great example of one in corn. How do you know if God did it or not?
This is not from scratch. A non coding region could contain an enzyme sequence already.
If science is claiming blind and unguided processes are the explanation for the diversity of life that is a false claim. I think we can agree on this.
You haven’t answered the question. Did God do it or not?
We do agree that God created everything. We do not at all agree about science’s ability to see that. You think that science can tell if evolution is guided or not. I do not think it can. It proves my point that we cannot even tell in an experiment if God did it or not.
I did in the prior post agree that we cannot tell.
I think you can make a reasonable judgement based on the evidence that it is guided.
Okay… that’s your conclusion. Are you OK with the Dual Creation scenario?
What is Dual Creation?