DEBATE: Evolution VS Intelligent Design
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:57 am
Intelligibility implies an underlying intelligent agent. I think this is kinda hard to disprove, unless you have an agenda
Macro-evolution is quite simply preposterous......also unless you have an agenda and wish to ignore and disregard real science.
I think that attributing the origin of life to a happenchance collision of molecules in a "warm little pool" under JUST the right circumstances is such a naive notion given what is known about organisms. Even an individual eukaryotic cell is terribly complex and has parts that have no function independent of their integration with the rest of the cell. Attributing the origin of irreducibly complex parts to the ubiquitous "well, it developed over millions of years" is a just God-of-the-gaps (albeit sans God) theory dressed up in a scientific guise. There are so many intricate parts and functions in even the simplest living things that are unexplainable according to macro-evolutionary theory.
As for microevolution, well.........I think that living things are DESIGNED to adapt well to different circumstances that face them. There is no way, though, that adaptive changes can produce the variety of living things that exist. Sure, scientists point to ants somewhere adapting to some change in their habitat and a few other things as well, but this is, like I said, just adaptation, not an evolution into an organism that previously did not exist.
Macro-evolutionary theory is at best a bad theory, at worst a quasi-religion.
Macro-evolution is quite simply preposterous......also unless you have an agenda and wish to ignore and disregard real science.
I think that attributing the origin of life to a happenchance collision of molecules in a "warm little pool" under JUST the right circumstances is such a naive notion given what is known about organisms. Even an individual eukaryotic cell is terribly complex and has parts that have no function independent of their integration with the rest of the cell. Attributing the origin of irreducibly complex parts to the ubiquitous "well, it developed over millions of years" is a just God-of-the-gaps (albeit sans God) theory dressed up in a scientific guise. There are so many intricate parts and functions in even the simplest living things that are unexplainable according to macro-evolutionary theory.
As for microevolution, well.........I think that living things are DESIGNED to adapt well to different circumstances that face them. There is no way, though, that adaptive changes can produce the variety of living things that exist. Sure, scientists point to ants somewhere adapting to some change in their habitat and a few other things as well, but this is, like I said, just adaptation, not an evolution into an organism that previously did not exist.
Macro-evolutionary theory is at best a bad theory, at worst a quasi-religion.