quote:
The burden of proof is on you to show that intelligent design was required for the ear to develop. Your refusal to do so is irresponsible and childish - “I believe it, now you prove it.” Does that make sense? No. If it’s your belief, then don’t ask others to do the hard work for you. Do it yourself.
my reply:
No, if you are claiming that the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution can explain the evolution of the ear by purely natural mechanisms, then the burden of proof is on *you* to explain how it happened. You are the one who claims to have a “theory,” genius.
And “explaining” it doesn’t mean just waving your hands and saying that natural selection can do amazing things. That’s called “begging the question,” a classic logical fallacy. Nor does it mean pointing out simpler ears in other animals, unless you can demonstrate in detail how one evolved into the other, with all the intermediate steps (which must also be functional lest the animal die off due to deafness).
Here’s what real scientists have said about ID:
This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. —Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia
Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words. —Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Any idea who those guys were, genius? Do you suppose they had some inkling of the “scientific method”?
Oh, I’m sure you are much wiser than they were.
I realize that I shouldn’t be so sarcastic and hostile, but I am just sick and tired of the crap that passes for scientific wisdom these days.
...if you are claiming that the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution can explain the evolution of the ear by purely natural mechanisms, then the burden of proof is on *you* to explain how it happened
That's worded with much more clarity and far less hostility than the last one. Thanks. I am not smart enough to develop a way to explain it without resorting to "God did it." I admit this.
Your ending statements show the difference between a creationist and a scientist.
The creationist uses old ancient words of wisdom from "real scientists" to show that modern developments are false. By doing so, he reflects his religious background. "The Bible intones, therefore it is. Do not think, just accept."
Science, on the other hand, is different. If words of wisdom from "real scientists" are shown to be false, then they are no longer held as dogma. They are discarded. Newton was indeed a genius, but the motion of our planets around the sun puzzled him and he never reconciled his explanation with the problems. In the end, he said, as you quoted, This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. It took another genius, Johannes Kepler, to show that our orbits are elliptical.
Were Newton and Kelvin luminaries in science? Oh, absolutely. I do not compare whatsoever to them. Does that mean that what they said disproves modern science? Uh, no.
This is where your religious background hurts you.
"God did it" has no place in science. It's not my business if you think he did it, but it is my business if you try to pass that off as science. If you want to teach it in history and literature classes, I'm with you. Just avoid the labs.
But, since it's so "obvious" to you that this is proof of "intelligent design," why don't you write a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal?
I mean, if it's really so clear to anyone who has more than half a brain, as you wrote, then your intelligence should be more than enough to write a paper that shows why our ear is the product of intelligent design.
Oh, that's right. My mistake. You can't because you're invoking the supernatural, which makes it impossible for you to get your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal.