| GotchayeA said: There are several problems with all of that, timmah. First, no one's talking about the origins of the universe here. This is creationism insofar as it is opposed to evolution, and evolution says nothing whatsoever about the origins of life or of the universe before life began (if in fact there was such a time). All of your talk about the big bang not being explicable by modern physics is interesting, but it's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Science doesn't have a rigorous theory as to how or why the Big Bang occurred - you're not really arguing with anyone here. Your only defense of intelligent design (of life) is your talk about DNA. You ask for a plausible nontheistic mechanism, which is somewhat surprising to me. Biologists call this mechanism 'natural selection' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection). It should be apparent how this can result in a logical order without design, but, if you'd like real-world proof of the same idea, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation. Anyway, none of what you offer is particularly useful evidence for a theistic theory of anything. Known facts invariably underdetermine an explanation. Knowing that the bus arrives at the corner every day at 9AM, I can't choose between a theory about a person driving the same bus in from elsewhere every morning or a theory about a deity creating new buses ex nihilo every morning. In science, we choose between underdetermined theories by testing their predictions, which could have been otherwise. Every scientific theory that enjoys widespread support in the scientific community (including evolution) enjoys that support because the theory has successfully predicted the outcomes of many experiments. Something like intelligent design, however, makes no useful predictions, and so no rational person can sensibly choose it over other theories which are indicated by the same set of facts. One might maintain that it is equally as likely as other theories which are equally untested, but you simply cannot maintain that it is particularly likely to be the explanation. To clarify, let's consider the difference between the sort of predictions evolution and ID make. Evolution predicts that ecosystems which are similar will have similar sorts of animals in them and that animals will be more like each other when their habitats are geographically close. We can imagine that this would not be the case, and so each time these predictions are confirmed, evidence for evolution grows. ID, however, does not make these predictions. It is compatible with these predictions, yes, but it is equally compatible with the opposite outcomes, and so neither can be taken as evidence. |
I only have a short time, so I can't answer all this. You're missing the point, I'm not saying that changes in species can't happen, I'm not saying that there are not types of 'evolution' or natural selection that change animals and plants over time to better adapt to their environment. My belief is that an intelligent being (God) created the universe as we know it, and that he created a set of animals, plants, and humans that were designed to adapt. It doesn't have to be one or the other, it's very obvious that animals adapt over time, I'm not denying that. My contention is that there's no way life could START on it's own. Scientists haven't even been able to create basic life in a test tube from nonliving substances with their intelligence. They've created building blocks for life, but not life.
My contention is that a godless system has no way of explaining the ORIGIN of life and our universe for precisely the reasons I mentioned before. Creationism is not so narrow as to deny natural selection or changes in species, that is where you are missing my point. I personally believe that there can be DRASTIC changes in animals over time as one genetic trait affords for better survivability, i just differ on how the whole thing got started, as physics does not allow for things 'starting' without an external starting force. We are not all as narrow as you think.
