Replies

Is there anything in the article that is factually incorrect?

Yes, This part

"Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, 1981, p. 88, emphasis added)".

This article is taking his quote out of context to suggest Crick (One of the greatest scientist of the 20th Century) believes in / supports ID

Here is the whole thing

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Not at all what this article presents it to be.

Now how strong can your position be if in order to prop it up you have to LIE and take a dead man's quotes out of context?

Do Creationist / IDers have any shame?

Not at all what this article presents it to be. Now how strong can your position be if in order to prop it up you have to LIE and take a dead man's quotes out of context? Do Creationist / IDers have any shame?

Let's see...the article states that he was an agnostic. It then gives a direct quote where he *admits* that an HONEST man (not deceitful, not malacious) ARMED WITH ALL KNOWLEDGE THAT SCIENCE HAS NOW...WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IS ALMOST A MIRACLE.

You can draw your own inferences, but obviously the man felt that there wasn't sufficient scientific evidence to prove that that the beginning of life was anything but a miracle.

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.

Please read, and understand, the following:

the·o·ry (the¯'?-re¯, thîr'e¯)
n., pl. -ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

[Late Latin theo¯ria, from Greek theo¯ria¯, from theo¯ros, spectator : probably thea¯, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from hora¯n, to see).]

http://www.answers.com/topic/theory

faith (fa¯th)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.

http://www.answers.com/topic/faith

I don't think he understands the difference. And neither do you.