Replies

So how do you address the evidence presented for evolution?

What evidence. Behe's "Darwin's black box' pretty much dispels the evolution myth.

Also, is there a hypothetical observation that could disprove creation/ID?

I'm not aware of one, but would be interested in hearing what you might have to offer.

And why would you assume that those who accept evolution do so on the basis of your creation myth and no other?

I never said that disproving evolution is proof, or even evidence of creation/ID, did I? As a logical point, disproving evolution simply establishes that there must be another explanation for how life came into existence in its current forms; nothing more, or less. I've agreed that disproving evolution is not proof of creation/ID.

On the other hand, I think there is substantial evidence for ID. Whether one deems the evidence to be sufficient to reach the level of 'proof' is certainly open for discussion. I personally think that the evidence for ID, and the absence of a third explanation for life, leads me to the conclusion that creation/ID offers the best explanation for life.

Whether you agree or not is up to you. As a minimum, an honest believer in evolution would admit they don't have all the answer for the problems of evolution and that part of their belief in it requires some element of faith; wouldn't you agree? If not, please explain the complete lack of transitional life forms?

If you accept the punctuated equilibrium explanation, do you really think that a male and female of a species would be transformed at birth at the same time, in the same manner, in the same proximity, survive to adulthood, and then meet and successfully mate? It does not take a scientist to realize that the odds of such events occurring would be statistically impossible.

What evidence.

The fossil record, DNA lines...

Behe's "Darwin's black box' pretty much dispels the evolution myth.

How?

I'm not aware of one, but would be interested in hearing what you might have to offer.

I have none to offer. No one has ever presented a reasonable falsification criteria for ID. That's why it is a fundamentally worthless explanation. If there's no possible way that it could be shown to be false, it has no meaning.

I never said that disproving evolution is proof, or even evidence of creation/ID, did I?

No, but you did speculate that the majority of those who accept evolution do so because they can't disprove ID or creation. You spoke on their motives, and I have to wonder why you assume such a motive, especially when you seem to think that their motive is hinged upon some implied significance to ID/creation.

On the other hand, I think there is substantial evidence for ID.

And this evidence would be? Prediction of ID? A test? A falsification criteria (some hypothetical observation that, if discovered, would show that ID if false)?

Whether you agree or not is up to you. As a minimum, an honest believer in evolution would admit they don't have all the answer for the problems of evolution and that part of their belief in it requires some element of faith; wouldn't you agree?

Only as much "faith" as accepting any other scientific theory.

If not, please explain the complete lack of transitional life forms?

What complete lack of transitional life forms?!

If you accept the punctuated equilibrium explanation, do you really think that a male and female of a species would be transformed at birth at the same time, in the same manner, in the same proximity, survive to adulthood, and then meet and successfully mate? It does not take a scientist to realize that the odds of such events occurring would be statistically impossible.

Maybe if you would look at the research on the evolution of sexual reproduction rather than arguing a strawman you would have a stronger position.

What are you talking about?

Do you think that evolutionary mutations take place "at birth", and must be identical in both male and female for the change to perpetuate?

You need to go back to 7th grade biology class and learn about DNA, Mendel and trait inheritance.

What evidence. Behe's "Darwin's black box' pretty much dispels the evolution myth.

For a detailed analysis of Behe's "arguement" see "Finding Darwin's God", by Kenneth Miller, the long-time co-author of the most serious introduction to Biology used by Universities, and without a doubt, one of those celebrated evolutionists referred to in a previous post. There you will learn, amongst other things, that one of Behe's featured predictions about things that would never make it into refereed journals because of unobtainable complexity, had already been published before his book was. Whatever his scientific credentials, bench-checking was apparently not one of his top-drawer skills.

All his argument amounts to, shorn of the pretty drawings and technical jargon, is that "if my giant brain can't imagine how something happened, it must be a miracle". If celebrated natural scientists all took this attitude, we might as well have left science up to the judges in Galileo's trial.