Intelligent Design, most scientific


#1

Einstein is just one of millions of prominent scientists over the years that have supported the theory of Intelligent Design, but he is perhaps the best known. In an article in “Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium,” (see LINK below) Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
This was from
americandaily.com/article/7913

I don’t know where the secularists get this idea that intelligent design is not scientific, when the best scientists in the world believe in it.


#2

There’s intelligent design meaning the creative force behind the universe is sentient and aware (hence intentful, or Einstein’s famous ‘God does not play dice’), and then there’s ‘intelligent design’ meaning ‘we really want to teach Biblical literalist creationism in public schools so let’s give it a new paint job and see if it flies’. You’re using both definitions interchangeably.


#3

But do they believe it is science?

I found this quote on Wiki. Is it correct or incorrect?

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that “intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life” are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.


#4

Einstein did NOT believe in intelligent design at the beginning. He was forced to believe in it, just like most astrophysicists BECAUSE of the scientific facts he learned about the universe.

In other words, most astrophysicists, did not force the scientific facts to fit their preconceived beliefs, but the scientific facts forced them change their preconceived beliefs to accept the fact that some intelligent being outside of time and space had to create the universe. They had to give up their previous theories that all developed by chance or that the universe always existed, **because of the scientific facts they learned. **

Thus, intelligent design.

The truths of intelligent design are evident in other sciences as well. Anyone who knows the immense complexity of a single celled organism knows that it is impossible for a life to begin from a primordial soup. Even just the cell wall of the single cell organism is so complex, so intricate, so alive with its active regulation of salts, wastes, intake of food, oxygen, etc., that no one actually believes that even a cell wall could form BY CHANCE from a mixture of amino acids and lipids and the other complex chemicals needed to form and maintain this living cell wall. Then the necessary coding for this exact cell wall at the same time had to develop BY CHANCE in the DNA and RNA of this living being. Then this coding also had to acquire the knowledge BY CHANCE of how to reproduce and form another exact being. No one actually believes this could happen by chance. So the secularists and those opposing intelligent design simply ignore the facts relative to the beginning of life. There is no way that a single cell organism, the simplest of life forms could develop by CHANCE. No one has ever been able to propose how this could happen, even at the basic level I have described. And it gets far more complicated than that.
Thus again it is scientific knowledge that forces the belief in intelligent design. It is lack of scientific knowledge by Darwin, to whom cells were mysterious black boxes, that allowed his theory to develop.
Again, I repeat, it is knowledge of the scientific facts that proposes the obvious theory of intelligent design.
The ONLY reason intelligent design is not accepted by all is because of the pre-conceived, narrow minded, archaic 19’t and 20’th century conservative view, due to lack of knowledge, that somehow all theories must fit the Darwinian theory that everything MUST develop BY CHANCE. Why should it? Since when is Darwin infallible? Who made him God? Why should scientific facts be ignored just because they don’t fit the old evolutionary theory? Who says we must stay with old hackworn theories? It was an ok theory while it lasted, but it is now out. If you study the history of science, the last people to accept new scientific theories are the old scientists. Some of them went to their grave refusing to believe the truths that had come to light.

Lets break with the past and go with the scientific facts. Intelligent design was an ancient theory (and teaching of the Church) that was given new life because of scientific facts discovered by scientists and it has been pushed and defended by scientists who are experts in their fields and who had to go against their preconceived beliefs.

Thus the idea that intelligent design is not scientific, simply because some fundamentalists have picked it up, just makes me smile.
Let the old fogies get angry and pout because their long loved theories are falling apart and they may lose the respect they once had. We know from history that they will not change. So lets just ignore them and get on with the truth.


#5

Einstein may well have been a deist. His religious opinions are as persuasive as those of any other layman. He could and did get things wrong in science, his religious opinions could equally well be wrong.

As Mirdath has pointed out there are two different versions of Intelligent Design:[list]
*]ID1: An Intelligent Designer was responsible for the origin of the universe.
*]ID2: There are structures in living organisms that cannot have arisen through evolution and must have been designed by an Intelligent Designer.[/list]
Einstein, and all Christians, Jews, Muslims and so on all subscribe to the first definition. The second version of Intelligent Design is far more problematical. You should not conflate the two definitions. Being a deist Einstein would have supported the first definition but would have rejected the second.

I don’t know where the secularists get this idea that intelligent design is not scientific, when the best scientists in the world believe in it.

Some scientists are muslims, that does not mean the Islam is scientific. Eminent scientists can hold many beliefs that are not science. The second version of ID claims to be science, but has so far failed to do the basic scientific work required. To quote Dr Dembski from 2002:Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.

Becoming a Disciplined Science
As far as I am aware ID2 has proposed two mechanisms for detecting design in living organisms: Behe’s Irreducible Complexity and Dembski’s Complex Specified Information. Behe’s idea has rather fallen by the wayside because it has been shown that IC can indeed evolve. Even Behe’s own work now shows that IC systems can evolve - Behe and Snoke 2004.

Dembski’s CSI has a problem in that Dembski now agrees that evolution can copy information from the environment into the genome, he calls this “apparent specified complexity” because the complexity is copied from another source. The problem is that Dembski’s Explanatory Filter cannot distinguish between real specified complexity and apparent specified complexity. Hence the Explanatory Filter is useless for deciding if a living organism contains real specified complexity.

Overall at this stage ID2 makes an assertion about living organisms but has no tested mechanisms for showing that the assertion is correct. There is a great deal of “it sure looks designed to me”, but that is not a good basis for science.

rossum


#6

Einstein never used the term “intelligent design”, nor did he believe that God intervened in human affairs at all. If you’re right, ID is merely deism, which Einstein accepted.

And some of it is. Blake’s “God of the Calipers” is a popular notion among the unorthodox mystics.

But it’s hooey. Why would you expect great scientists to automatically be great theologians?


#7

Einstein believed in intelligent design. I never mentioned whether he believed in God or not, or what his version of God was. But, just like most astrophysicists, he believed that some intelligent being outside of time and space had to create the universe, BECAUSE OF HIS SCIENTIFIC STUDIES.
Again, his belief in intelligent design was NOT the result of a religious belief, though it can certainly be in conformity with religion. It was the result of scientific studies.

Again, there seems to be some preconceived belief that intelligent design cannot occur or cannot be true because everything must be explained as always having existed or everything must occur by chance.

I have noted that those who have responded seem to have blindly accepted these preconceived beliefs as THE TRUTH.

Since intelligent design cannot be discredited on the scientific arguments ( because science led Einstein and others to believe in intelligent design), then they must try to claim that prior religious beliefs were the source of the scientists belief.

Again, this is false. Einstein and the other scientists did not accept Intelligent design based on religious beliefs. They based it on pure science. Whether Einstein was a deist or Christian or Jew does not matter. Whether his idea of God, if he had an idea of God, does not matter. What his theology was does not matter. He was not proposing theology or religion, but a scientific theory. Now, he may later have tried to fit this scientific theory into some personal religious belief. But, the scientific theory came first, based on science, NOT on religion. Thus whether his religious beliefs were wrong or not does not matter in this case. Intelligent design is a theory based on scientific knowledge by scientists who are experts in their field. Their religious beliefs, if any, does not matter. They may even be atheists, it does not matter. I am trying to make public the truth that intelligent design is proposed by scientists BECAUSE of their scientific investigations.
The sole reason that some secularists don’t accept it is because intelligent design fits perfectly with religious beliefs, especially with beliefs that have been handed down by the only person in history who founded a religion who claimed to be God, Jesus Christ.
And the Catholic religion, which He founded, has always taught this belief. The specific difference is that the Church teaches the intelligent designer must be God, whereas scientists do not make that assumption. They just say that an intelligent designer must have created everything. It does not have to be God.

Thus, while the Church has always taught that God created everything, and thus is the intelligent designer, the recent promotion of intelligent design is NOT the Church, but scientists, who through their scientific studies alone, conclude their must be an intelligent designer. They don’t even claim to know who that designer is. It could be some alien being. It could be satan. It could be God. Since they don’t claim to be theologians, most don’t claim to have any expertise in this matter.
Thus, it doesn’t matter if the scientists are Muslims, Christians, Atheists, agnostics, Deists, etc. Their proposal of intelligent design is based on science, not religion.


#8

Behe’s Irreducible Complexity and Dembski’s Complex Specified Information. Behe’s idea has rather fallen by the wayside because it has been shown that IC can indeed evolve.

Absolutely. Behe has always said that personally he believes IC can evolve by God’s active intervention.
What he argues, and no one has proven otherwise, is that IC cannot evolve by pure chance, as the Darwinian theory of evolution teaches. That is the scientific part of his argument that he puts forth and that is what scientists must answer.
And no one has given any logical explanation how IC could evolve.
Of course there are lots of far out proposals, which make no sense at all that militant secularists put forward. But no one accepts them except those who will not give up their preconceived beliefs of evolution by chance. And we don’t expect them to change. History has proven that there are always scientists who refuse to believe newly discovered truths no matter how obvious. That is because scientists are humans with human faults. They do not like to be proven wrong. Others reject God and thus will not accept any scientific theory that makes God probable. Others don’t want to give up the respect they earned over many years through their teachings, books they have written, papers published, etc. I understand that. We are all human.
So there are always some who claim the Behe’s irreducible complexity has been proven wrong, when they know it hasn’t. Just as they claim “evolution is a fact”, when it is not. It is a theory, which simply does not fit the evidence any more.

And the more they claim that Behe has been proven wrong, with explanations that make no sense, and the more they say intelligent design is NOT scientific, despite the overwhelming evidence, and the more they simply assert “evolution is a fact” the more I see their personal preconceived beliefs affecting their work. They are simply not objective at all. And I don’t expect them to be objective. They are human, with a fallen nature. It is only through God’s grace that any of us can approach objectivity.

Take global warming for example. Their are fierce fights and arguments, by scientists, on the cause of global warming, and whether it is really happening, or not. The opposing positions are not based on religious grounds. Yet there are total disagreements. That is because we have a fallen human nature.

In the same way, intelligent design will always have those who reject it. But, lets be honest. The scientists who have been proposing it, such as Einstein and the astrophysicists, have done so on scientific grounds, not on preconceived religious beliefs.

And that is all I am trying to make clear.
Intelligent design is being accepted BECAUSE it is proposed by scientists based on scientific knowledge, and not because of their preconceived religious belief.


#9

I’m sorry to butt in on this conversation (considering I have no time to stay), but I couldn’t pass this up.

What you’re saying is that science can somehow prove the existence of something which is unscientific to start with. Refer to this simplified analogy…

Even if scientists *did *discover that a certain 2 + 2 = 5, it still can’t *empirically *prove the existence of a supernatural “1” so long as as that “1” is said to be empirically unobservable.

What we *should *do is keep looking for that other “1”. After all, before all of the scientific advances of this century, we were still at “1 + 1 = 5”.

I’d continue with more, but this is on the list of threads I want to create in the future.

Have a nice day. :slight_smile:


#10

Again I see preconceived beliefs in this response, because you claimed that I said, “science can somehow prove the existence of something which is unscientific to start with”.

I never mentioned that it can be “proved”. You again fail to see what is obvious to the scientists. And that is the scientific investigations by experts in their fields leads them to accept the intelligent design theory. It is a theory, just as Darwin’s idea of evolution was a theory. One cannot prove Darwin was right any more than one can “prove” intelligent design is correct. But, according to the vast amount of scientific date and more is gathering every day, in both astrophyics and biology, Darwin’s theory of evolution simply does NOT fit the data. Intelligent design fits the data perfectly. That is why SCIENTISTS are the ones
pushing the THEORY. Therefore
intelligent design is most scientific. Darwin’s theory and theories that the universe always existed or developed by chance are not scientific at all because they do NOT fit the observable facts both of the universe and biology.


#11

You need to read Behe’s own work, which I referred to in post #5, his paper with David Snoke. Quoting from the Abstract of that paper:We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10[sup]8[/sup] generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10[sup]9[/sup].
What Behe and Snoke are saying here is that Irreducibly Complex features can evolve in 100 million generations in a population of one billion organisms. Given that bacteria can easily have populations in the trillions and that their generations can be as short as twenty minutes that is not a particularly high hurdle.

Reading further down the paper we read:Our model is restricted to the development of MR features by point mutation in a duplicated gene. We strongly emphasize that results bearing on the efficiency of this one pathway as a conduit for Darwinian evolution say little or nothing about the efficiency of other possible pathways. Thus, for example, the present study that examines the evolution of MR protein features by point mutation in duplicate genes does not indicate whether evolution of such features by other processes (such as recombination or insertion/deletion mutations) would be more or less efficient.
So Behe and Snoke’s model only considers one of the possible forms of mutation - point mutations. Behe shows that even with one hand tied behind its back, Darwinian evolution can give rise to Irreducibly Complex features.

If you refer to the evidence from the Dover trial, Behe was cross examined on this very paper.

And no one has given any logical explanation how IC could evolve.

Just because you have not read any of them does not mean that they have not been given. Here are a few:[list]
*]Is the Complement System Irreducibly Complex?

*]Evolving Immunity A Response to Chapter 6 of Darwin’s Black Box

*]Evolution in (Brownian) Space: A Model For the Origin of the Bacterial Flagellum[/list]
All three of those show how IC systems can evolve.

Of course there are lots of far out proposals, which make no sense at all that militant secularists put forward.

I doesn’t actually matter how far out the proposal is. Behe’s argument is that there is no possible route for an IC system to evolve. Once you have shown the existence of any type of possible route then the argument fails. We even have examples of the evolution of an IC system with step by step details of each mutation. The original paper, by Lenski et al is here, the step by step list of mutations is here. That is not a “far out proposal”, it is a detailed step-by-step list of how an Irreducibly Complex system evolved.

So there are always some who claim the Behe’s irreducible complexity has been proven wrong, when they know it hasn’t.

Better tell Behe then, since his paper shows that Irreducibly Complex systems can evolve.

Just as they claim “evolution is a fact”, when it is not. It is a theory

Evolution is both a fact and a theory:[list]
*]Evolution-as-fact says that the genomes of interbreeding populations change over time.
*]Evolution-as-theory is the explanation as to why this change happens.[/list]

Evolution-as-fact has been observed and is being observed, bacterial resistance is an obvious example. Evolution-as-theory is indeed a theory which is as well established as the heliocentric theory of the solar system and better established that the theory of gravity. Creationism was rejected by science during the 19th century and nothing the creationists have done since gives any indication that they have the scientific means to replace evolution with a revised creationist theory.

rossum


#12

What he argues, and no one has proven otherwise, is that IC cannot evolve by pure chance, as the Darwinian theory of evolution teaches. That is the scientific part of his argument that he puts forth and that is what scientists must answer.

Someone has greviously misled you about that. Darwin’s discovery was that it wasn’t by chance.


#13

Mutations are by chance.
Darwin taught that the nature would select those mutations of chance that are beneficial.

Thus he taught that life developed from by chance mutations.
Wiki states:
"In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871, Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes”.

Note the blind acceptance that life began without intelligent design.

One of the leading proponents of life beginning on its own from non-living sources, or abiogenesis, is Carl R. Woese. Note what he writes on this site.
pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854

"Biologists have long subscribed to the powerful, unifying idea that all life on Earth arose from a common ancestor"
Blind acceptance of Darwinism in other words.

From that theory, which is full of holes, as any impartial observer can see, he writes.

“Nothing concrete could be said about the nature of this ancestor initially, but it was intuitively assumed to be simple, often likened to a prokaryote, and generally held to have had little or no intermediary metabolism . Only when biology could be defined on the level of molecular sequences would it become possible to seriously question the nature of this ancestor.”

Note how he now goes from a very weak theory of evolution, supported and pushed and forced on people, only because it claims to explain life developing without God, to blindly accepting as fact that life developed from non-living sources.

Thus he goes from an extremely weak theory, which is only popular BECAUSE it can explain life developing without supernatural means, to the assumption that it HAD TO HAPPEN.

Note that there is NO evidence for such an ancestor to have ever existed. None.

Notice what he writes next.
"The unrooted universal phylogenetic tree that emerged from ribosomal RNA (rRNA) sequence comparisons provided the first glimpse of our ultimate ancestor, albeit an indirect one (3, 4). Whatever it was, this cryptic entity had spawned three remarkably different primary groupings of organisms (domains)http://www.pnas.org/math/12pt/normal/mdash.gifthe Archaea, the Bacteria, and the Eucarya-and these necessarily reflected the ancestor’s nature. Phylogenies derived from the few other molecules that then had been sequenced confirmed the three predicted groupings, and concurrent biochemical characterizations further developed their uniqueness But, from this first universal tree, one could infer only that the ancestor was some ill-defined “urstoff” from which three primary lines of descent somehow arose . "

He just assumes this ancestor existed. Since he assumes it had to exist, then he assumes it had to develop from “molecular sequences” which could replicate. Of course these phantom “molecular sequences” that replicate have never been found, nor the ancestor similar to a prokaryote.

Why does he assume they had to exist. Because he blindly believes in evolution by chance mutations and natural selection.

Note that none of his early life assumptions are based on any factual data, but solely on preconceived theories.

It is all based on a weak theory, and blindly accepted as true and factual and a tremendous amount of stories and myths are built up to fill in the vast amount of missing data to make the theory even remotely plausible.

He doesn’t even begin to explain how one of the simplest parts, which is a cell wall, could develop from non-living sources. Cell walls are not inert, like a plastic film. They are living entities, which must take in oxygen, and selective nutrients, excrete wastes, CO2, etc. He doesn’t even begin to explain what would make RNA to even think of forming a cell wall or how in the world chance mutations of RNA would occur that could even form a cell wall.


#14

Thus more impartial observers such Yockey write, as
quoted in Wiki on abiogenesis:

Information theorist Hubert Yockey argued that chemical evolutionary research faces the following problem: Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.** One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written**.
In a book he wrote 15 years later, Yockey argued that the idea of abiogenesis from a primordial soup is a failed paradigm: Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions. … The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.[4]
Yockey, in general, possesses a highly critical attitude toward people who give credence toward natural origins of life, often invoking words like “faith” and “ideology”.

Yockey is NOT a creationist.
And notice he wrote.
"Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted"
Meaning the conclusion that life arose from non-living sources.

Yet he admits there is no evidence for life arising spontaneously. So by what authority has it been “authoritatively accepted”?

It is NOT by means of any scientific evidence. There is none.


#15

Yet scientists like Einstein and others who changed their preconceived theories to accept intelligent design BECAUSE OF THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE are ignored.
Yet those who continue to promote a universe and life arising by chance from non-living sources and natural selection are promoted and praised despite absolutely no evidence at all.
As a Catholic I could accept a form of evolution, in which God set up laws from the beginning so that life could evolve. I can go either way. But, based on the scientific evidence Darwinian evolution is an extremely poor theory. And the blind acceptance of it especially the blind acceptance of the origins of life
without any evidence at all totally turns me off. And the blanket rejection of intelligent design by these secular evolutionists turns me off even more.

Intelligent design was resurrected by expert scientists (such as Einstein) based on their SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION.

Those who reject it cannot refute the evidence. So they try to claim it comes from fundamentalists, or “it cannot be proven”, (of course not, it is a theory like evolution, which can’t be proven either) or “it is not scientific”, etc, etc. etc. , or Einstein was not a theologian (he didn’t claim to be), or that these scientists endorsed intelligent design because of their religious beliefs, when the opposite was true. The endorsed it despite their religious beliefs.

Then they blindly accept abiogenesis based on their faith of evolution with NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE at all that it occurred.

These evolutionists are similar to the early Protestants who claimed “the bible alone is our authority”, when there was no authority from God teaching such a thing. Then they repeated it over and over and over and many Christians blindly accepted it because they heard it so often.

But, they accepted a preconceived belief and they are sticking to it, just like evolutionists blindly accepted a preconceived belief and are sticking to it.

Unfortunately, it is not scientific.
Intelligent design is scientific.

I have made myself as clear as possible on this subject and don’t have the time to write any more.
If you can’t understand from what I have written, then further writing will not help. Please look up why intelligent design is accepted by astrophysicists before any further attacks are blindly made.


#16

But if that’s true, then this potentially invalidates those who claim the Scriptural record of man being formed from the “dust of the earth”.

In other words, even young earth creationists accept that living matter was created from non-living matter-- albeit, at God’s direction. So, in all fairness, if the literal reading of the Genesis account is accurate, then this must have happened somehow.

In short, the assumption that life arose from non-life seems to be a safe assumption– even if they don’t agree on how this actually came about.


#17

Correct, but that is not what you asserted in your post #8, what you said was:

You are right to say that mutations happen without regard to their effect, you are wrong to say that the whole process of evolution is “pure chance”. Mutations arise by chance, natural selection is most certainly not a chance process.

Darwin taught that the nature would select those mutations of chance that are beneficial.

Thus he taught that life developed from by chance mutations.

No he did not. The title of Darwin’s book is “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Life”. Darwinian evolution starts with the first living thing. How that first living thing originated is through a different set of processes having a lot more to do with chemistry than natural selection. Look up “abiogenesis”. Chemistry is not a chance process, and chemistry has a great deal to do with abiogenesis.

Wiki states:
"In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871, Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes”.

Note the blind acceptance that life began without intelligent design.

I see not “blind aceptance”, I see “may have begun” which is mere statement of a possibility not the dogmatic assertion of blind acceptance.

He doesn’t even begin to explain how one of the simplest parts, which is a cell wall, could develop from non-living sources. Cell walls are not inert, like a plastic film. They are living entities, which must take in oxygen, and selective nutrients, excrete wastes, CO2, etc. He doesn’t even begin to explain what would make RNA to even think of forming a cell wall or how in the world chance mutations of RNA would occur that could even form a cell wall.

You need to learn more chemistry. Google for lipid bilayers. Take some lipid, stir it up and it will naturally, due to chemical forces, form a bilayer. Cell walls are basically lipid bilayers with some added bits. As I said, abiogenesis is not a random process, it is a chemical process.

rossum


#18

This isn’t ignored, this is just false. Einstein never believed in intelligent design. There is no evidence in support of intelligent design. Intelligent design isn’t even scientific, which is even more damning then it sounds. It’s a non-idea, self refuting intellectual non-sense.


#19

Lipid bilayers? You’re joking, right? It’s a bag. What do you put in it? And where does that come from? And how can it be self-assembled to form a living, functioning cell consisting of complex interdependent parts? And if that’s all there is to it, why hasn’t life been created in the lab?

God bless,
Ed


#20

Ed, you might want to study a bit of science before you post things like this.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer
blanco.biomol.uci.edu/Bilayer_Struc.html
uic.edu/classes/phys/phys450/MARKO/N016.html

Those are just the first 3 sites that came up when I Googled “lipid bilayers”. A very little effort is necessary to keep from looking foolish.

Besides, you have repeatedly said that you enjoy and accept chemistry. This ought to be right up your alley.

Peace

Tim


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.