Replies

I have given you several predictions of the current theory of evolution. If any of these turns out to be untrue, then it is false. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that the fact that these predictions are true implies that the theory is true. Evolution will never be proven. But, then again, neither will any other theory or law in science. This is how science works. Ideas (such as evolution) are formulated. Predictions are made from these ideas as to what will be observed under given conditions. Observations are made to attempt to confirm these predictions. If the predictions are shown false, the idea is abandoned. If many predictions are confirmed, then the idea becomes a theory (or law, depending on whether it is an explanation or a description of observations). There is never any proof of it, however. If you don't like this, then stay away from studying science. However, whatever you like or dislike, evolution is a scientific theory and creationism is not. Therefore, science classes should teach evolution and not creationism. (Creationism could and probably should be taught in other settings, however.)

If a software programmer were to examine Windows XP and make predictions about an earlier iteration of Windows, would this prove the program has evolved by itself (without intelligent influence). We are well aware that the programmers at Microsoft pale in comparison to the program of bio-diversity, with it's ability for self-replication, self-repair, sophisticated error correction, redundant methods of insuring viability...

The only reliable observation that we can base a theory on is the fact that life is adaptable to the environment. However the evidence points to the fact that these adaptations were already written into the code.

Take a callous for example. We normally don't have callouses. We only develop these protective coverings when the environment warrants it. After the environment no longer warrants the callous, our pre-programming allows those genetic traits to turn off. Finch beaks are the same.

There has been no success in creating a new species, even with our intelligent programing influence, which I can assure you holds more sophistication than 50 billion years of Random Mutations & Natural Selection. We are talking about one species change, not millions that would be required for RMNS + time. Reconsider your perspective by considering what the scientists data is, rather than what they interpret it to be.

The Intelligent Design science is making strong headway into perspective change.