Sounds like neither evolution by chance mutation nor related to any version of creation. Merely refuting evolution would not award points to creation. I know Polanyi, destroyer of Einstein’s Relativity theory.
Come again? I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.
[[Sounds like neither evolution by chance mutation nor related to any version of creation. Merely refuting evolution would not award points to creation. I know Polanyi, destroyer of Einstein’s Relativity theory.]]
ID awards the points, AND it refutes naturalism, and is a more reasonable explanation for hte complexities witnessed in nature. As GGG suggested, ID better explains the scientific evidence- when one hypothesis is dead, then another must be proposed. Mutation= Millions of years can’t explain life because of impossibilities it faces biolgically, so another proposal MUST be made, and when the evidences coincide with what one proposal such as ID suggests, it can’t simply be dismissed out of hand- that’s not to say that another ‘naturalistic’ proposal can’t be proposed, (Lateral gene transference comes to mind) to explain life, but it needs to be ceeded that Microevoltuion + Accumulation + millions of years can produce what we see today, and at least come up with another hypotheisis that is at least biolgically probable.