Replies

Law as in the “Law of Gravity”.

Theory is a postulation that has been verified to some degree. It does not rise to a Law because there are elements yet to be explained (like the evolution of the eye).

This is the totality of your supercilious little quiz I intend on taking. If my answers are not pointy-headed enough for you, I’m sure I’ll hear about.

My faith in God drives my belief system, not an atheistic, begging-the-question agenda desparately contriving, to no avail, to disprove God’s existence.

I shall not cravenly apologize for this or accept the “theory” that it is symptomatic of a degraded intellect.

I believe in Intelligent Design, which is as incapable of absolute proof as Evolution. And I have yet to see it disproved scientifically. Even Einstein conceded that the complexity of the Universe implied the hand of a higher intellect. My faith in God drives my belief system, not an atheistic, begging-the-question agenda desparately contriving, to no avail, to disprove God’s existence.

Isn't it required by ID that there be no link to God? Why would you believe in a movement that has a leader that says the Designer may be dead since there was no evidence of his interaction in evolution for the last few hundred million years?

Theory is a postulation that has been verified to some degree. It does not rise to a Law because there are elements yet to be explained (like the evolution of the eye).

You are unclear on the relationship between a theory and a law. Perhaps this will help:

Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.
Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory.

Law as in the “Law of Gravity”.

Without getting all "pointy-headed" on you, the term "Law of Gravity" is in error. In fact, Newton's gravitational theory has been superseded and no longer applies in science. There is no "Law" of gravity. And note, there are zero "laws" in biology. The "highest grade" (so to speak) an idea can achieve is to be a theory. Airplanes and computers succeed based entirely on "theories." The Theory of evolution is a very strong idea - the strongest there currently is to explain the diversity of life.

(like the evolution of the eye).

A great example! It's quite well explained in the literature and even though creationist websites like to quote Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye is,"absurd in the highest degree," they seem to always ignore the next 1000 words he wrote to hypothesize how such an organ could evolve. Amazingly, he was very near the mark. If you are interested in the many years of research into this interesting topic, Google is your friend.

Interestingly, our eyes are not ideally fit for sitting at a computer nor reading a newspaper. Why is that?

I believe in Intelligent Design, which is as incapable of absolute proof as Evolution. And I have yet to see it disproved scientifically.

Your first statement is inadvertently correct; that is, one can not absolutely prove evolution. Science does not deal in absolute proof - it deals in evidence. Evolution has 150+ years worth of it. ID has, to date, nothing but a couple layman pop culture books written by lawyers, etc and a failed bid to insert ID to the curriculum in PA.

FWIW, ID also contradicts creationism, which is fine by me, but it must be noted that ID specifically attempts wild gyrations to disassociate itself from "God..."

...My faith in God drives my belief system

... Which you don't do. All ID has done to date is nitpick pieces of science which it claims there is no explanation (Argument from incredulity) which provides the ironic joy of watching real scientists studying harder and writing more about those specific supposed holes in the TOE. In one sense, ID is tightening up the TOE here and there. So thanks.

I shall not cravenly apologize for this or accept the “theory” that it is symptomatic of a degraded intellect.

Your high-minded insult is appreciated. It's nice to read something like that here for once. I'm sorry you have difficulty accepting facts which you and your particular flavor of Christianity can't remedy with your particular interpretation of Scripture.