too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

This is where it gets interesting, ICDESIGN. You see, you are making a prediction based on a theory. That's one of the things that theories are for: making predictions. You predict that, if the theory is true, we should see a lot of lifeforms with major malfunctions.Now, people here have been saying that we do see this in nature, and indeed, a lot of things can and do go wrong in the making of new creatures. But I think that's not what you meant. You said "lifeforms", and I think you meant that there should be a lot of extant species with major malfunctions. You think there should be whole groups of creatures, all the same, all going about their business, and all with the same malfunctions, am I right?On the assumption that I am, I think we can agree that, in fact, this is not what we are seeing. Therefore we should conclude that the theory, the one we have based our prediction on, is in fact false. We are doing science here. And we are progressing nicely, because we have just disillusioned ourselves from a theory that isn't true.But now there's a slight problem. We may agree that the theory we've based our prediction on is false, but I don't think we'll agree on what that theory actually is. You think it's the theory of evolution you've proven false, but I think it was actually just a misconception of it that went down the drain. And it's hardly surprising that you should get the theory of evolution wrong, because, by your own admission, you haven't studied it very well.So, for your benefit, allow me to explain something. One of the core elements of the theory of evolution is natural selection, also often described as the "survival of the fittest". It means that only the best adapted species thrive. Now, a species that has major malfunctions would hardly qualify as the "best adapted", would it? So, what the theory of evolution really predicts is that we should not, repeat not, see species with major malfunctions. And that's exactly the case: what we see is well-adapted species instead. I am sorry to hear that. Have you tried using some moisturizing facial cream? (Sorry, I am not mocking you, I just couldn't resist this one. It's a language thing.) This is easy. Try to see natural selection as a sieve. The wrong answers are the larger grains of sand and the right answers are the smaller ones. Looking at it this way, what you are asking is: how is it possible that only the smaller grains of sand fall through the sieve? Doesn't the answer seem a lot less baffling all of a sudden?I really hope you see the points I am trying to make here. You and I have no quarrel, and I am only trying to help you understand what you are fighting against. Do with it what you will.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

My starfish beats your Pleco, because its mouth is its bottom. If it could talk, it would be like a creationist.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

My mistake, I should have looked it up. The upside of it is that, even talking seastars know better than to talk out of their arses, like creationist are wont to do. (As am I, apparently.)

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Before you go ICDESIGN, could you please tell me if you have read my post Message 48, which you haven't responded to? I was hoping it would have given you some insight in how science works. Did it help you in any way?Edited by Parasomnium, : Question mark added.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

How could there be, logically speaking? Such evidence would have to be evidence that proves the non-existence of supernatural causes. Since it is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of anything - how do you prove the non-existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? - what you are saying is a non-starter.However, the fact that we cannot be sure that supernatural causes do not exist, does not mean that we must therefore assume they do. For what should we believe in that case? There are a million different ways in which we can imagine supernatural causes for the universe. But since we have no evidence for any of them, maybe we should just stick to what we do have evidence for, and that's a naturalistic explanation.To boot, this naturalistic explanation also has some really useful predictive power, something which can't be said of any supernatural explanation that people have come up with so far.Edited by Parasomnium, : Spelling.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

And that depends on what you believe constitutes knowledge. Science didn't bring us nuclear weapons, it just found out how atoms work. For nuclear weapons, we have to thank our politicians.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Well, what are atheists supposed to do? Accept a philosophy that disagrees with their world view? "Hey guys, I am an atheist, but I'm cool with the idea that God exists."Is it really worth mentioning that atheists reject disagreeing philosophies? Am I missing some profound insight here?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Hmmm. Do you mind if I refrain from asking you to enlighten me? If those atheist are science minded, they would be inclined to accept anything that goes against their world view, as long as convincing evidence is presented. Unlike YECs, atheists are capable of changing their minds. It's called 'progress'.By the way, as far as I'm concerned, you can do away with the capitalization of the word 'atheist'. It's not a movement of some kind, with 'followers' and the like. It's just a mode of thinking.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

GDR,In response to my Message 280 you write: And in your reply to Crashfrog's Message 286 you present what you consider evidence (for the existence of God, I presume): First of all, to me your evidence seems like nothing more than a list expressing your personal incredulity - no disrespect intended. It doesn't really explain anything. The evidence I would like to see should be able to explain the how of things. Random mutation and natural selection provide just that: a mechanism. And this mechanism is corroborated by many different kinds of evidence, from such diverse scientific disciplines as molecular genetics, to comparative anatomy and morphology, to biogeography, all of which provide insight into how evolution works. It all fits together.Your evidence, on the other hand, amounts to little more than: "There is something rather than nothing, therefore God must exist", or "All life is complex, therefore God must exist". What if God was someone who likes things simple? Surely, the complexity of life would then be an argument against him, wouldn't it? Shouldn't we know more about God from a different source before we pronounce him the cause of all this complexity?Second, your evidence is not necessarily evidence of God. It could be that there is something rather than nothing because of a natural law that we don't know about. It could be that life is complex because it was created by a race of alien pranksters, just because they like complicated things. Or it could be that life is complex because random mutation and natural selection are guaranteed to create ever more complex structures. How is anything you mentioned evidence for your God, and not someone else's?There's nothing up your sleeve, indeed. But you've got nothing on the table either.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.