Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stinky
the IDers like to explain there is a perfect explanation for evolution when one accepts the involvement of a great designer. Perhaps cockroaches say grace when we drop crumbs - he he 
But on a serious note I see no justification in discussing the scientific merits of ID when it is based on superstition. |
Huh? What's that? It sounds like you're saying that ID actually agrees with evolution, so long as a designer was there to kickstart it. I don't think so.
For example, Put your hand up if you saw the big bang?
Sorry? No one?
Put your hand up if you saw the formation of our galaxy, solar system and earth.
What's that? still none?
Alright then, put your hand up if you saw the first molecules arrange themselves in such a way that they came to life.
I thought so.
ID, just like evolution, is a historical science. The difference is what you choose to base your paradigm of beliefs on. Both have the same evidence to work with, they just use different presuppositions to interpret it.
Rather than beginning with the idea that life evolved accidentally from molecules to man, ID starts off that a designer created life. From this point, life was able to "evolve" through natural selection, using only the genetic information already available. But this is more DEvolution than evolution!
In experimental science we can see this works, such as in selective breeding. However the only increase in information comes form mutations and all known mutations are destructive, not advantageous!
So now tell me how evolution of molecules to man is not superstitious??? To believe in something you have never witnessed is quite clearly, dare I say it, Religious.
Please keep in mind that both evolution and intelligent design are historical sciences. It doesn't matter what you believe about the past, so long as you agree with experimental science.
Be excellent to each other,
Nic