Replies

No intelligent designer would have put the genomes of living organisms together in the way that evolution has. Some parts overlap, meaning that they cannot change jobs independently of one another. Others have lost their function but have not been removed, so they simply clutter things up. And there is no sense of organisation or hierarchy. That is because~~, unlike an engineer, evolution cannot go back to the drawing board, it can merely play with what already exists.~~ we don't know everything about genetics yet and so can't make the determination of why things are the way they are.

In order to make these blanket statements, scientists would need to demonstrate that they indeed know all there is to know about all DNA and WHY it's the way it is. They're presuming they know more than an intelligent designer capable of creating an entire universe and the life in it. A bit presumptuous.

order to make these blanket statements, scientists would need to demonstrate that they indeed know all there is to know about all DNA and WHY it's the way it is. They're presuming they know more than an intelligent designer capable of creating an entire universe and the life in it. A bit presumptuous.

The same statement was made about chemistry a century ago. It was though that no chemical produced by a living thing could be prepared in a laboratory. They though organic chemicals could only be produced by living things and it would be impossible for man to create in a test tube what God has living organisms doing as part of His creation. When urea was artificially synthesized, that broke that paradym of thinking. As for DNA, it's chemistry is very, very well understood. We can synthesize DNA in the lab. We have also made DNA analogues using different building blocks than deoxyribonucleic acids. I know a synthetic chemist that made a DNA analog where the phosphate groups were substituted with siloxane groups and that was over 12 years ago. There is no mystery behind the fundamental chemistry of DNA. That's well established chemistry.

They're presuming they know more than an intelligent designer capable of creating an entire universe and the life in it. A bit presumptuous.

You're presuming that there is a designer capable of creating an entire universe and the life in it. A bit presumptuous.

:-)

You're not keeping up with the news.

Just to keep it simple, these are DNA building blocks for artificial genes and artificial organisms.

Although you're right, we don't know everything, but that's an unreasonable standard for homo sapiens.

We'll be smarter after we're done redesigning ourselves and supplying implants for faster processing and memory storage.

In order to make these blanket statements, scientists would need to demonstrate that they indeed know all there is to know about all DNA and WHY it's the way it is.

I have worked with both scientists and engineers. As a general rule, I have found that scientists focus on what they don't know, while engineers seem to think they know everything.

Worse than that, actually. One of the favorite refutations of theistic arguments is "How are *you* so specially favored to know what God is like. It's only your opinion, not falsifiable, etc. etc."

But they have no compunction, when considering life and/or "God", in jumping to the conclusion (but treating it as 'axiomatic') that God worked and thought primarily as an engineer. Why not a hacker, or even an artsy-fartsy "creative" type?

Cheers!

"No intelligent designer would have put the genomes of living organisms together in the way that evolution has."

And that can't be explained by degradation from the design because..................?