Frankly, this is getting tiring. I could debate point by point the issues you’ve raised, but I doubt it’d serve any good. And they are besides the point anyway.
If you would go back to all of my previous writings, you’d notice that I never made any value judgment. I never said that ID is a piece of crap, neither have I said that evolution is error-proof and the answer to all of our heart’s desires.
The crux of my argument is simple: ID does not abide by the scientific principle. Evolution theory does - from the simple fact that it has hypothesis that can be tested and are being tested. Not from the virtue that it has no error. Not from the virtue that it answers everything. But, to repeat, from the virtue that it has hypothesis formed from observation which can be and are being tested.
Yes, there are issues involved with evolution. No one has ever denied that. It’s true that data could be interpreted differently as you’ve mentioned. You could form multiple hypothesis from a single data. But the point is, in science, you test those hypothesis. The ones that do not pass get discarded. But the practice of forming hypothesis and then testing them IS science.
At the turn of the 20th century, physicists came up with the concept of ether to understand the constancy of the speed of light. It turned out that it was highly mistaken. Tell me, although it was wrong, can you say that what they were doing was not physics, ie science? Have we not learned a great deal from their mistakes?
If you’re truly concerned that the established scientific community are being stubborn in their ‘belief’ contrary to the evidence, don’t be. Like I said, spend some time in the scientific community. You’d see how many ideas are generated and you’d see how many are discarded in favor of evidence. After all, Newtonian classical mechanics reigned supreme for 200 years. It was displaced in favor of newer, more correct theories in light of new evidence. If evolution is as wrong as you say it is, it WILL be displaced in light of new evidence.
I never did make any value judgment, but considering this is the last time I’d write, let me tell you how idiotic ID sellers are. Note - I said sellers, not believers. If you believe God created heaven and earth as your religious crux, I’d respect that. But those who try to sell it as science, either they are big liars or idiots. Take your pick.
First of, look at what they’re selling. The only thing they have to justify their existence is the so-called ‘faults’ on the evolution side. Since evolution is wrong, ID is right, they crow. And that is truly idiotic. It’s like saying if a shirt is not white, it has to be black.
Secondly, they admitted ID is not science because it cannot be tested. (Look at the icr.org, an ID site) And yet still they tried to sell it as science. I mean...d’uh?
Third, it adds nothing to our scientific understanding. It has no original idea of its own. NOTHING. So a designer created our universe. Whoop-de-da. How does it benefit our scientific world? What cool new things could be derived from that? What new theories could be built based on that? Nothing, nada, zip.
If the only thing that elevates a theory into a scientific theory is the sole fact that evolution is wrong, I think I should demand the school boards for equal time for other theories which I think are cool. The skeptic’s belief that everything originated from a big giant ball of fire. And humans are formed as this fire cool. Or the chinese belief that says that humans are created from the spilled blood of Pang-gu. Or my favorite - the flying spaghetti monster is responsible. Note - all these examples I mentioned are silly. But according to those ID sellers, they qualify as scientific theories (if not for the fact they are not based on Judeo-Christian belief).
I’m sorry if I have to leave on such a harsh note. But this whole ‘ID as science’ thing irritates me to no end. I was religious once and I still do respect religion a great deal. But lately snake oil sellers have tried to use the name of religion to justify every dumb and idiotic things they do. I’m begging you, and all other religious people out there, to please not encourage them. What you have is beautiful - don’t let them taint it with their self-serving causes.
> I was religious once and I still do respect religion a
> great deal.
I am not religious. I do not believe that rituals or regular church attendance or repetitious prayers or unintelligible utterances can save anybody.
My faith is based on a personal relationship with the Living Creator God.
> What you have is beautiful
If Evolutionism is correct, then what I have is NOT beautiful.
If Evolutionism is correct, then Christ’s sacrifice to defeat Sin and Death on the cross is meaningless and Christ becomes a liar for teaching the Genesis account of Creation as fact.
Death, being the engine of Natural Selection, which in turn is claimed by Evolutionists to be the mechanism by which radically new taxa emerge, would have had to have been part of what God declared was “Very Good” at the beginning.
If Death is a part of that which was “Very Good” from the Beginning, then why must Christ, as God manifest in the flesh, sacrifice Himself on a Roman cross to defeat it?
And since Christ taught the Genesis account of Creation to be true, He is made a liar by Evolutionism.
I believe, and Jesus taught, that Death entered the world through the Sin of Adam.
Christ came to defeat Sin and its consequence, Death.
Evolutionism makes Christ a liar and His sacrifice meaningless.
If Evolutionism is correct, then what I have is a lie and my faith is in vain.
That is not beautiful.