Micro evolution is observable. But not macro evolution. Observation and inference based on logic is one way we understand the world. Especially that part of the world that is difficult to understand experimentally.
The two concepts are mutually exclusive by definition.
They are? How? Intelligent Design fundamentally attacks how it started. Evolution addresses how it's continued. So how are they mutually exclusive, other than the fact they address fundamentally different questions? ,/i>
Intelligent Design posits that an intelligent agent was behind the "creation event". This agent was the designer of the universe. He had the "design specs" and the "blue prints" so to speak.
Evolution (atheist version) requires information ex nihilo (out of nothing). The Neo-Darwinist's mechanism not withstanding.
Now if you posit the Deist's theory that god created evolution then you must still accept that information preceded life.
This creates some fundamental problems for evolutionists.
e.g. If it's a given that god's information thru his will created the universe (i.e. time and matter and space) then what about subsets of the universe. e.g. humans?
Or did god place the necessary information in matter that eventually found its way into our DNA?
Or is god outside of time creating and supervising his design project as we speak? The deists won't like that.
Unless of course you posit that an intelligent agent e.g. God invented evolution. And that therefore unifies the two, meaning they are not exclusive, correct?
Correct. But that was not the prevailing opinion of evolutionists.
I said in an earlier post trying to understand evolution is like trying to nail jello to a wall.
They seem to be backing away from the ex nihilo explanation. Dawkins recently admitted such to Ben Stein in his new movie "Expelled".
Life was invented by aliens from outer space according to Dawkin's musings.
More jello on the wall.
False. And this has been explained hundreds of times -- evolution does not include origins.
Here are five possible hypotheses:
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
Why do you guys keep claiming that it does? By now, it can't be ignorance of what the theory of evolution states, because you have been corrected hundreds of times.
Is it tilting at strawmen because you can't effectively argue against the theory of evolution itself?
Or is it just an attempt at propaganda? You know, kind of like the whole "Darwinist" thing we keep hearing about.
With some species, yes macro-evolution is not observable. But with others (such as bacteria), it is observable. Here is one case:
One of the major differences between organisms is their capacity for various functions. The ability to occupy one niche over another is invariably due to differing functions. Thus, functional change must be extremely important for macroscopic macroevolutionary change.
Unicellular organisms have evolved the ability to use nylon and pentachlorophenol (which are both unnatural manmade chemicals) as their sole carbon sources (Okada et al. 1983; Orser and Lange 1994). The acquisition of this latter ability entailed the evolution of an entirely novel multienzyme metabolic pathway (Lee et al. 1998).
Would not the evolution of a second stomach designed to digest something that is not naturally occuring indicate evolution? For it is a reaction of a biological entity to not only a change in their environment, but a change that is wholly impossible within their native environment. Pentachlorophenol did not exist until the 20th century, and only exists in the chemical vats of pentachlorophenol manufacturers.
Evolution (atheist version) requires information ex nihilo (out of nothing). The Neo-Darwinist's mechanism not withstanding.
Bluntly put, male bovine excrement. Evolution - please see the definitions above - deals with the mechanism of change, not how it all started. Fundamentally you are misrepresenting what evolution is!
Shall I claim that ID is nothing more than people believing that horse farts created the entire world, and that we are all actually identical but physics warps around each of us differently so we see differences in shape and color?
It is a similar corruption of ID. Evolution doesn't talk about the "creation event"; that is the straw-man that ID anti-evolutionists like to posit. And when you are truly honest with yourself you will see that ID and evolution are not opposites, for they address fundamentally different questions.
Now if you posit the Deist's theory that god created evolution then you must still accept that information preceded life.
This creates some fundamental problems for evolutionists.
No, it is a straw man. ID is the why and who, evolution is the how.
e.g. If it's a given that god's information thru his will created the universe (i.e. time and matter and space) then what about subsets of the universe. e.g. humans?
What of it? Evolutionists will say humans evolved from the universe; Deist evolutionists will say that God designed the process to result in evolution of humans, so that evolution is actually a fulfillment of the will of God.
Or did god place the necessary information in matter that eventually found its way into our DNA?
Sure, why not? Does the fact that God placed the information there, and set up the laws of the universe mean that the process of evolution cannot happen?
Or is god outside of time creating and supervising his design project as we speak? The deists won't like that.
That is a philosophical and religious argument; how it has bearing in a scientific field is beyond me! If the deists can't stand it, that is their concern.
Christianity clearly teaches that God is outside space and time...
I believe that creationists cannot stand the thought that God may have used the process of evolution to bring about man from apes because they want to believe that the form of man is special! It is a form of idol-worship itself, that the body is holy because of how it looks, not what it contains (the soul). That is a purely religious/philosophical issue, and shows a lot more about their weakness in their own faith than in a failing of science!
Correct. But that was not the prevailing opinion of evolutionists.
Because - now read this over a few times - evolution is the process of HOW LIFE CHANGES, NOT HOW LIFE AROSE. You are conflating two seperate issues into one, and in the process losing your own argument.
You state "evolution doesn't say how it all started"! To which the evolutionist will say "it doesn't matter". And guess what - IT DOESN'T.
Fundamentally, you are trying to equate athiesm with evolution. It doesn't work that way. Any more than I can equate communism with Christianity (after all, look at the early Acts church - it was clearly communistic), and say that if you are a Christian then inherently you must be a communist.
Both equalities are clearly bereft of intellectual honesty.
They seem to be backing away from the ex nihilo explanation. Dawkins recently admitted such to Ben Stein in his new movie "Expelled".
Because it DOESN'T MATTER. You're trying to say that red must be different from blue because of the existence of the number 3. Huh? Fundamentally, evolution doesn't care HOW it started, but how it CONTINUES.
The problem is that creationists and anti-evolutionists refuse to actually accept a definition of evolution when provided, because it doesn't fit their pre-conceived notion of evolution. Self-referential definitions are all that are allowed, and that is the quickest way to delusion.