1.Behe brought us to the micro (molecular)-level, and claimed everything was different there. Using twoof the following areas of biology we covered {Speciation, Adaptation, Taxonomy, Comparative Anatomy, Embryology (Development), Paleon-tologyIntelligent Design advocates and other Creationists insist that ‘Naturalism’ is a philosophical-religious doctrine smuggled illegitimately into science. Usingthree of the areasof biology we covered (the above list, plus data at the molecular level), critically assess this claim. }, and the basic arguments for Direct Design at the macroscopic-level that were applied to them, critically evaluate whether or not anything substantial doeschange at the molecular level. That is, when all is said and done, arethere really any new arguments in favor of Direct Design that Behe introduces, or is the debate pretty much the same (with the addition of new examples)? Provide details and examples, and defend your position(s).
2.Intelligent Design advocates and other Creationists insist that ‘Naturalism’ is a philosophical-religious doctrine smuggled illegitimately into science. Using three of the areasof biology we covered (the above list, plus data at the molecular level), critically assess this claim. That is, could a non-naturalistic perspective adequately explain the data in the three areas you chose, and would these explanations be ‘scientific’? Provide details and examples, and defend your position(s).
