[Heartlander]

I am merely posting creation theories because coyoteman seems to enjoy creation stories. Now, you are welcome to defend a creation theory/story if you choose - but should science set out to disprove all telic possibilities with stories that “must” be natural regardless of the findings?

Dr. David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard seems to think that the purpose of science is to create stories/theories in regard to the origin of life that – well, as he says, ‘’my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.”

Myth 1: The theory of intelligent design is a modern version of Creationism.
Fact: The theory of intelligent design goes back at least as far as classical Greece and it has been debated in nearly every century since then.

…"as a blind man has no idea of colors," Newton wrote, "so we have no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things." But the structure of the universe provides a clue, enabling us to "know (God) . . . by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes." As for the idea that science could lead to atheism, Newton dismissed it brusquely: "Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could [not] produce [the] variety of things" found on our diverse and ever-surprising world…

[js1138]

Your post is rather redundant, because we on the evo side have been saying for years the there is nothing new in Behe.

Behe's book, almost word for word, was published in 1802. The argument was old then, as you have pointed out.

This would explain why Darwin's Origin is written explicitely to answer this line of thought. Origin takes each and everry argument posed by William Paley in 1802, and counters it.

The rebuttal has yet to be published. Current ID theory is just a paraphrase of Paley.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Now, you are welcome to defend a creation theory/story if you choose - but should science set out to disprove all telic possibilities with stories that “must” be natural regardless of the findings?"

Science can ONLY deal with natural causes. Supernatural causation can never be part of a scientific theory. You say *regardless of the findings*, but there have been NO findings that support supernatural causes.

"Dr. David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard seems to think that the purpose of science is to create stories/theories in regard to the origin of life that – well, as he says, ‘’my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.”

This is the way EVERY theory in science works, without exception. Why single out Dr. Liu for starting from the same point that all science starts from?

"Myth 1: The theory of intelligent design is a modern version of Creationism.
Fact: The theory of intelligent design goes back at least as far as classical Greece and it has been debated in nearly every century since then."

It's just a very OLD version of creationism. I'm not sure who says it is modern.

"As for the idea that science could lead to atheism, Newton dismissed it brusquely: "Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could [not] produce [the] variety of things" found on our diverse and ever-surprising world…"

Yet his theories assumed no supernatural causes. That he was a creationist just means he believed as most everybody did before Darwin. He was also a Unitarian who denied the divinity of Christ; should Christians look to him for theological arguments just because he was a scientific genius?