Replies

Do you see the main assumption here?

DNA sprang out of nothing, just as it is now, it could not have evolved. His main assumption is that evolution is false, therefore everything that exists, sprang into existence as it is now.

Do you notice the circular reasoning that this entails? Do you notice the absolute certainty of his convictions.

Yes, it was impossible for DNA to spring out of nothing as it is now, therefore he is correct in that respect, but because he believes with all his heart that evolution did not happen and could not happen, intelligent design is all he has left. He has backed himself into a corner that he can't get out of.

It is no wonder we cannot communicate, we just do not understand his zealotry and closemindedness.

Gore and Andrew invariably fall back on the argument from improbability. It is similar to the argument from early laws of aerodynamics that proved that bumblebees couldn't fly. In fact, insect flight was studied for decades before being understood. I believe the basic principles were discovered just a few years ago. Of course there was a great deal of circumstancial evidence that bees could fly, dispite the theoretical impossibility.

Arguing against observed fact on the basis of improbability is a risky proposition. One's limb keeps getting shorter and shorter as evidence accumulates. I have every reason to believe that some of the criticisms of evolutionary theory will prove correct. The history of science is full of corrections. The problem isn't with incorrect assertions made by individual scientists; the problem is overthrowing the whole concept of common descent. that will be as tough as proving the earth is only 6000 years old.

And before I get spammed with irrelevant arguments, I accept the mathematics of the improbability argument, but doing sums correctly is irrelevant if the model is incorrect. Since even those who argue design do not really have a working model, the improbability argument is premature, at best.

If one is to argue that a string of characters is in fact a computer program, one has to deconstruct the language, decompile the data, the functions and the operators. I can't prove that this can't and won't be done, but I an certain it has not yet been done.