[TXnMA]

"...But once you admit that the parts of such a complex machine might have a useful function outside of that machine, you open the door to natural selection."

One of my most enduring playthings as a child (and one which awoke and fueled my inventiveness as a professional) was a marvelous collection of interchangable components called an "Erector Set". The number of clever mechanisms one could make with an "Erector Set" was virtually limited only by one's creativity -- and the number of components available.

However, I never encountered anything useful that formed when I dumped the pieces onto the floor. And I find the conclusion that, because simpler contrivances can be made from parts of a larger one constitutes evidence for "natural selection" to be insupportable.

About all one could claim is that the components themselves were so formed (some would say, "designed") so as to be suitable for both assemblies and sub-assemblies (or simpler, but different, assemblies).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am certainly no proponent of "Intelligent Design" as a substitute for sientific rigor -- even though my personal experience with the workings of God in my daily life is incontrovertible.

As a Christian who is also a physical scientist, I find no need to allow my religious beliefs to taint the rigor of my scientific studies. Nor do I have any prediliction to allow those who would force a blending of the two to dilute my scientific endeavors -- or to diminish my spiritual awe at the majesty of all that science reveals to me.

"Creation Scientists" and "Intelligent Designists": neither my faith nor my science has need of your attempts to shove your primitive world view into either my beliefs or my science. I don't need your "help" -- and neither, IMHO, does our God.

[TXnMA]

Ooops! Sorry, Ladies, I intended to include you (info copy only) in the addressees for #25...

[curiosity]

However, I never encountered anything useful that formed when I dumped the pieces onto the floor.

So what? If you think this would somehow be analogous to the process of evolution, then you simply do not understand the latter.

And I find the conclusion that, because simpler contrivances can be made from parts of a larger one constitutes evidence for "natural selection" to be insupportable.

Why?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"And I find the conclusion that, because simpler contrivances can be made from parts of a larger one constitutes evidence for "natural selection" to be insupportable."

It's a refutation of the idea of irreducible complexity though.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your testimony and for sharing your insights and views!!!