No need to dip into arcana. Why not ask: why can't we fly? Why do we have to eat or sleep?
What you perceive as a "mistake" may not actually be one.
No, intelligent design is simply superstition and faulty theology disguised as science.
Calling ideas names doesn't invalidate them. I'll add that you don't seem to understand what the word "superstition" means and that you're not well-versed enough in theology to determine what in the discipline is "faulty".
Science is not all about experimentation. It is collection and analysis of data, too.
Absolutely. Once data is collected and verified it can be used to construct a theory which can then be tested. Observation is a necessary precondition to experimentation and an essential part of the scientific method.
Over the last 150 years, millions of data points have been collected, not one of them contradicting Darwin's Hypothesis,
That's simply incorrect.
which elevates the hypothesis to a Theory (a Theory is a fact of science).
Incorrect again. A theory is not a "fact of science" - it is the working model under which scientific inquiry operates.
If any contradiction of any element of the Theory or the Theory as a whole is obtained, science would immediately drop it.
That's an extremely naive statement. The scientific community was so dedicated to Newtonian mechanics that for decades it refused to consider that Newton's model might not subsume all mechanics. Phlogiston theory is another paradigm that preoccupied chemists for more than a century.
Historically, scientific theories hang on as ruling paradigms for quite a long time after they should have been discarded.
However, Darwin explains how biology has worked and is working today. It is observable today in genetics.
Darwinism does not explain modern biology. Mendelian genetics does, and Mendelian genetics - the real way physical characteristics are passed on from generation to generation - demonstrates the difficulties in the Darwinian hypothesis. Genetics shows that mutations are continually rejected by populations and that reversion to the mean is characteristic of genetic variation.
Both faith and science are founded on fact.
True. As St. Augustine said, God wrote two books - the Scriptures and Nature.
However, belief in God is a leap of faith that science does not cover.
Incorrect. God's existence is a matter of fact, not of faith. What God has revealed about Himself, or whether He has revealed anything at all, is the subject of faith.
Do you deny that Jesus existed? If so, this is the same as denying Darwin's ideas.
That's just silly. Christ existed and Darwin had ideas.
The fact that Darwin had ideas does not mean his ideas are automatically true.
Denying a historical fact - that Christ existed - is not the same as denying that Darwin's ideas are valid.
That's just an illogical statement.
Do you believe Jesus existed-faith founded on fact.
Immaterial.
1. God would not make mistakes in design, as the designer of your washing machine did. Why do we need vitamin C to survive? What does the appendix do and why does its removal when infected not harm us, but the infection does?
No need to dip into arcana. Why not ask: why can't we fly? Why do we have to eat or sleep?
What you perceive as a "mistake" may not actually be one.
(LOL-the point is we have inherited from the primate line an absence of the gene that produces vitamin C. It is apparent from studying comparative genetics that other animals have such a gene, but it was dropped from primates. Until you can answer why God would have dropped such an essential gene, your argument is very very weak.)
No, intelligent design is simply superstition and faulty theology disguised as science.
Calling ideas names doesn't invalidate them. I'll add that you don't seem to understand what the word "superstition" means and that you're not well-versed enough in theology to determine what in the discipline is "faulty".
(I have a Dr. in Ministry. Your interpretation of Genesis is faulty. I know superstition when I see it.)
Science is not all about experimentation. It is collection and analysis of data, too.
Absolutely. Once data is collected and verified it can be used to construct a theory which can then be tested. Observation is a necessary precondition to experimentation and an essential part of the scientific method.
(The theory had been continually tested over 150 years. It has been predictive of genetics and molecular biology. It has never been contradicted. Experimentation is not necessary in all areas. However, mutations have been experimented with in bacteria and virae with results that
are expected from the Theory. So, you are just plain wrong.
Your understanding of science is clouded by your zeal to believe wrong-headed theology.)
Over the last 150 years, millions of data points have been collected, not one of them contradicting Darwin's Hypothesis,
That's simply incorrect.
(No its not. If the Theory had been found to be incorrect, science would drop it. This is unlike your superstitious
holdings that you will never drop, despite all evidence to the contrary.)
which elevates the hypothesis to a Theory (a Theory is a fact of science).
Incorrect again. A theory is not a "fact of science" - it is the working model under which scientific inquiry operates.
(Nope, that is more a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a working model. You creationuts always confuse scientific definitions to make your specious arguments. Give it up.
We who understand science won't fall for it, but you might fool some Kerry voters who don't seem to rely on facts, either.)
If any contradiction of any element of the Theory or the Theory as a whole is obtained, science would immediately drop it.
That's an extremely naive statement. The scientific community was so dedicated to Newtonian mechanics that for decades it refused to consider that Newton's model might not subsume all mechanics. Phlogiston theory is another paradigm that preoccupied chemists for more than a century.
(Newtonian mechanics are still true, except at the subatomic level. Phlogiston is pre-science.)
Historically, scientific theories hang on as ruling paradigms for quite a long time after they should have been discarded.
(You can give no example of this. You just think you can.)
However, Darwin explains how biology has worked and is working today. It is observable today in genetics.
Darwinism does not explain modern biology. Mendelian genetics does, and Mendelian genetics - the real way physical characteristics are passed on from generation to generation - demonstrates the difficulties in the Darwinian hypothesis. Genetics shows that mutations are continually rejected by populations and that reversion to the mean is characteristic of genetic variation.
(The above is simply false. I don't have the time to explain why you are totally wrong. However, genetics was predicted by Darwin in his Theory. Genetics forms the modern Theory of Evolution with Darwin's principles as a foundation.)
Both faith and science are founded on fact.
True. As St. Augustine said, God wrote two books - the Scriptures and Nature.
(Men wrote Scriptures. God created everything. The Theory of Evolution is true. None of these things contradict each other.)
However, belief in God is a leap of faith that science does not cover.
Incorrect. God's existence is a matter of fact, not of faith. What God has revealed about Himself, or whether He has revealed anything at all, is the subject of faith.
(That is not what the Bible says. I am surprised you would go to heresy to support your erroneous anti-scientific position.)
Do you deny that Jesus existed? If so, this is the same as denying Darwin's ideas.
That's just silly. Christ existed and Darwin had ideas.
(Unbelievable! You think Darwin didn't exist? That is the illogic of your argument.)
The fact that Darwin had ideas does not mean his ideas are automatically true.
Denying a historical fact - that Christ existed - is not the same as denying that Darwin's ideas are valid.
That's just an illogical statement.
(Darwin's ideas have been substantiated with millions of pieces of data that all fit together to solve the puzzle of how allele frequency changes in populations over time. Sorry if you can't face the truth.)
Do you believe Jesus existed-faith founded on fact.
Immaterial.
(I'll tell Jesus you said that.)