Posted on 02/13/2006 4:31:16 PM PST by MRMEAN
Biologists are beginning to solve the riddles on which intelligent-design advocates have relied
To advocates of intelligent design, the human sperm's tiny tail bears potent evidence that Charles Darwin was wrong--it is, they say, a molecular machine so complex that only God could have produced it.
But biologists now are starting to piece together how such intricate bits of biochemistry evolved. Although the basic research was not meant as a response to intelligent design, it is unraveling the very riddles that proponents said could not be solved.
In contrast, intelligent design advocates admit they still lack any way of using hard evidence to test their theories, which many biologists find revealing.
The new insights on evolution at its smallest scale were a major yet little-noticed reason why a federal judge late last year struck down a plan in Dover, Pa., that would have put intelligent design in public school classrooms. The findings the judge cited will provide the ultimate test of ideas about the origins of life, more lasting than court rulings or the politics of the moment.
Most scientists have long rejected intelligent design, or ID, on the grounds that it is a religious proposal not grounded in observation. ID adherents say biochemistry actually supports their view. They argue that many tiny mechanisms--the tails of sperm and bacteria, the immune system, blood clotting--are so elaborate they must have been purposely designed.
Yet biologists have made major strides on each of those phenomena since the first ID books were published in the mid-1990s.
Working without the benefit of fossils, experts are using new genome data to study how fish evolved the crucial ability to clot blood. A wave of new research on the evolution of the immune system seemed to stump ID witnesses in the Dover case. And even ...
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
What if it's a "force" that resides beyond the physical universe?
Ahh, now I undestand you. You do not have a significant understanding of science to itelligently discuss something without making an attack on someone who disagrees with you! What a putz. I have all the understanding I ever need. What I don't need are self righteous people like you disregarding facts and trying to fit them into the theory. Many, many fakes have been uncoverved in evolution. It is, and proven, mathematically impossible for life to have started on earth, given the atmosphere that existed at the time, accidentally. Efforts to reproduce life have always failed, anyone who says differently are liars, including you. Have a nice day:)
What about it?
Life seems to thumb its nose at the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Did God evolve? Just appear? Why would God have any relationship with man if man is just another creature on this planet He watches over?
If God didn't make the universe? What does He do? How does He survive?
Better question: What is the physical evidence that God exists?
####I wouldn't dwell on God's hand in creation but to deny the possibility is to deny that God exists####
That's a good point. The evolutionists here will often assert that one can be a Christian and also believe in evolution. While that's technically true, it seems to me that it requires a belief in THEISTIC evolution. That is, evolution that occurred not as a result of wholly naturalistic processes, but as a result of God's guiding hand.
However, many of the same people who insist that Christians can and should embrace evolution, then insist on purely naturalistic evolution as the only version acceptable for discussion in the public schools. But how can Christians accept that? It makes no sense to argue that God exists, but He had nothing whatsoever to do with life on earth, and, in fact, life on earth would look exactly the same even if God didn't exist.
Then there's the tendency of many (though not all) evolutionists to attack and mock Christians, God, and the Bible. They even quite stupidly do this in the midst of the same threads where they're simultaneously arguing that Christians can be evolutionists.
You have made several statements that are blatantly false about evolution...that's why I assert that you fail to comprehend it. I'm not impugning your intellectual ability, but merely your grasp of the theory of evolution. You say you understand it well enough, then you go ahead and make more false statements.
Go outside on a clear day, look up, and become enlightened.
Explain.
False statement (or presumption): Evolution is NOT about abiogenesis, never was.
Evolution is fact. God's role in it is unknown, and may never be known, but that doesn't mean He isn't there.
The 2nd law says that entropy tends to increase in a closed system. The energy provided by the Sun makes the Earth not a closed system, therefore local decreases in entropy are not a contradiction.
But the universe as a whole IS a closed system.
Matter/Energy isn't created or destroyed.
It is only a false statement to evos, because it is matematically impossible for it to have happened, and so evolution is so much BS, along with ID and creationism. Claiming this to be false is just another cop out for evos. If you can say evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life then you can discount all the facts and how they disprove evolution. Have a nice day.:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.