2. I am reading everywhere now that Darwin's concepts are an adequate explanation for the origin of life, NOT just its evolved present state. That's new isn't it? Patrick Henry, we've talked about this before and you said, if I remember correctly, that Darwin explains the descent of the species not the origin of life. For example, from this article: "But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life." So which is it?
3. What I object to in the persuit of science is the notion that we can explain it all without the need for a Creator. How do we keep science from encroaching into an area that it has no business? You can say that science evolution doesn't speak to the non-existence of a Creator, but very often that is what is being implied and conveyed via the theories(and rabidly atheist teachers). Often evolution is taught with a vengeance toward God, is my point. Are there any curbs in place for that excess?
I didn't see that you got an answer and these threads have a tendency to take off, so I thought I'd give you my 2 cents.
1. The SETI search is based on the idea that physics and chemistry work the same in other parts of the universe as it does here. If it's the same, then it seems like similar processes that created us should be working. Since we appeared "only" 4.55 billion years after the earth's formation in a universe around 13.5 billion years old, it seems like some other planet could have intelligent life something like us by now.
Behe's concept is actually not Behe's, it's Darwin's. And he re-worked Dembski's ideas to get there. But ID is really an idea looking for data, methods and definitions. Complexity still apparently has no meaning, and there is apparently no objective method for determining it.
2. Darwin, or evolutionary biologists, don't claim to explain the origins of life and don't claim to have any well-defined process for how it occurred. These claims originate with creationists and ID'ers who don't know a lot of science or biology. Behe and Dembski, for example, don't believe biologists claim this.
Evolution claims to explain that species evolve over time from existing species. The evidence for evolution is in the fossil record. No ID'er has ever addressed this massive amount of data in any logical form as of this date. That's why they choose to argue in the arena of molecular chemistry and genomics. There are more unknowns to work with.
3. There are some scienists who believe that man, or our more evolved descendants, will eventually be able to explain nearly everything in the universe. And there are atheists and agnostics who will tell you so. But most scientists are Christians in this country.
The problem with public school in general is that God has been shown the door. But rather than fix this by pretending that the Bible is a science text book, Christians should rally to the cause of Christian classes in schools. Things like ID could be aired there without diminishing the quality of science education, which is already pathetic. The proof of how bad science education is in this country is that we even have to have crevo debates.
ID has no methods, definitions, results or even a journal for publishing research. That's because it's not science. It's just an attempt to sell books, lectures and the like to people who want to hear a faith-based message.
However, I find the misuse of the phrase "origin of life" by high school level biology teachers, and their ilk, to be a major part of the problem.
I understand descent of the species as a part of Darwinian observation. It doesn't bother me. What is bothersome is the attempt to misuse Darwin as an explanation for life's origin.
Everyone who knows Darwin on this list seems to agree that such an application is wrong, yet it is a VERY commonplace overstepping of the limits of Darwinian theory, which causes unnecessary confusion and aggravation.