To: Brumar89 who wrote (695 ) 12/9/2016 12:44:29 PM From: Brumar89 Read Replies (1) | Respond to Why nanomachines are considered designed only if they are built by humansEvolution News & Views: The 2016 Nobel Prize for Chemistry recognized the intelligent design (what else would you call it?) of artificial molecular machines. These “nano” machines are impressive as technical achievements. Yet they are also exceedingly simple, “cute” but “useless,” as Nature reported that “some chemists” say. “We need to convince [researchers] that these molecules are really exciting,” as one scientist remarked. Writing at CNSNews, Discovery Institute biochemist Michael Behe makes the point that Darwin advocates don’t want to hear. If scientists need to be “convinced” that nano machines are “exciting” and useful, the same is surely not true when it comes to the molecular machines familiar to biologists. That’s the nanotechnolgy that make continuing existence possible for chemists, Nobel Laureates, and every living creature on the planet: …More Let’s spell out the danger: It is okay to talk about design in nature as long as we are referring to human artifacts (because humans are not special, reality consciousness naturalism The conflict between fine-tuning and the multiverse turns precisely on that point: The multiverse is an attempt to circumvent the evidence for fine-tuning on principle because the evidence does not matter.A naturalist theory can, of course, be imposed without evidence, and imposing the theory is what matters. See also: Terminology watch: Hidden “intelligence”
