Creationism/ID as Science

quote:

---

Yes, you can turn this around. But, facts remain the same. Evolution has hijacked Science. Real Science was practised before Darwin. After Darwin, Science has never been Science.

---

Now, please explain to me if real science is not being practiced, how is it we have so many new products, services, and buildings that all derived from science?Also explain to me why it was the scientific revolution/enlightenment that brought the world out of the the dark/middle ages, the era when GDP and scientific knowledge actually decreased.But I agree with you on one point. After Darwin, science no longer was truly a servant of the church, designed to do what it wanted rather then seek and understand the truth of the natural world.

First, we're waiting for your staistics on scientists supporting Intelligent Design.Second, faith is a belief in something that has no evidence or proof. How can evolution be a faith based idea when parts of it have been tested and the evidence grows day by day?And how is evolution atheist? Evolution does not seek the origin of life, it never has. Evolution does not invalidate God. It may invalidate a fundementalist, literal orthodox God, but that does not mean it is athiestic as Diesm fully accepts evolution, as does Buddhism, and a whole list of other religions, including many protestant and catholic sects of Christanity who see genesis as metaphorical.And it is simply easier to believe in Creation then take the time, money and effort to understand evolution. Goddidit is by far the easiest belief then understanding and running experiments in labs that takes years to grasp.

It's more then that. 4% genetic difference means chimps share 96% identical genes. I agree with you on how ridiculous it is to think such a finding is irrevelant. Should we mention the Cliffs of Dover?

The sad thing is, all I need is one site to disprove Behe.Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on Intelligent DesignBehe's argument is extremely fallacious. He basically assumes that every gene and mutation has a single set function. That's completely insane. We know that genes rarely code for a single trait, and many traits work by combinations of genes interacting. Thus for a trait to arise out of three sequential mutations is not that implausible because these new mutations can often provide secondary advantageous traits. I have yet to see Behe or any other ID person deal with this problem. It gets ignored everytime I ask it.One of Behe's ridiculous comments is of the acid test, specifically during the Kansas-make-a-mockery-of-itsel-trial.

quote:

---

A. That's correct. I think on the next slide we see that he wrote in his book Finding Darwin's God ,which was published in 1998, he said, " A true acid test used the tools of molecular genetics to wipe out an existing multipart system and then see if evolution can come to the rescue with a system to replace it."

​

So here he was making the point well, here one test of this claim of irreducible complexity and the ability of Darwinian processes to make complex systems, well, is to find a complex system in a cell, destroy it, and then see if random mutation and natural selection can come back and replace it. And I have to say I agree that's an excellent test of that claim.

---

The problem is that the concept of IC is joke as it assumes there is only one function for a set of genes and organs. The classic mousetrap example is a perfect analogy. Sure removing the spring doesn't make it work. But I can still use the wooden pad to stomp on the mouse. I can shave the metal and place in food to posion the mouse. I can use the wood as a paper weight, i can use the metal in hobbies. This entire assumption of a single use is contridicotry to what we see in nature. Not to mention that the argument Behe is using assumes that mutations can fill in a complex function from scratch, which is completely removed from what evolution argues.

So all of the new products and services ranging from huge bombs to tiny drugs that came from science, came from a science that no longer uses verifable or observable facts?So better living through chemistry was actually just a big speculation that didn't led to the modern world?Trying to make sense of inkorrekt's claim is like trying to make a lego castle out of melting swiss cheese.

Dr A, why it is that ID never acknowlege the issue of gene interaction leading to secondary affects and more then one function for a specific gene?I posted a reply aganist Hughes dealing with just that, specifically that Behe's claim of 3 seqential mutations before a functional organ is impossible is illogical because of multiple traits arising from gene interaction, he never replied.

Hahhaah. Please tell me how you can test for a supernatural intelligence with science which is the study of the natural world. This outta be good. You keep saying this but never respond to criticism of how it's bull.ID is merely if one cannot explain _________ Goddidit.