Hi. Please check out this site. There is some reading to do but it’s scientific so maybe you could give me your opinion. Be honest.
allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm
Another question, if you can’t remember why you started posting here, then tell me what reasons do you continue here?
Sure. First, the methodology of intelligent design theorists is flawed from the outset (IMHO). They will say the best way to look for cause
when we only have evidence of the effect is to look to analogous structures in nature. I’ll give an example (this example isn’t from the site, but I’m intimately familiar with this argument & I’ve heard presentations by its most prominent advocates).
Take lava rock formations. When we find a prehistoric lava rock formation it’s valid to postulate it came from a prehistoric volcanic eruption rather than say a crack in the earth’s crust (caused by an earthquake or something like that); because normally (as far as we know) lava rock always comes from volcanic eruptions.
Using this logic intelligent design theorists will say since we know all machines require an intelligent designer it’s logical to postulate we are the product of intelligent design.
They usually go a step further. They will compare our DNA with complex machines (namely computers) and say since we know computers require an intelligent designer, something as complex as human DNA must also require a designer (or words to that effect).
There’s obvious problems with that methodology. Can DNA really be compared to electronic machines? Formal logic would say in a very broad sense yes (they’re both complex structures), but there’s not enough similarities between humans and machines to support this methodology to the extent we see with, for example, the volcano analogy.
However, it’s even more simple than that. In the case of volcanoes – we know they exist, and they still produce lava (that eventually cools to form lava rock formations). We have no barometer for god. There has never been a verified god sighting, much less a verified report detailing an account of a god creating something.
So the analogies they use (which their methodology relies on) is seriously flawed.
Next, they outright make false claims. Here’s a shining example:
*Yet, evolutionists have formulated their “scientific” conclusion without resorting to any data at all. In fact, evolutionists have steadfastly maintained their conclusion despite data to the contrary. *
The author here is referring to “spontaneous generation” (and he’s not necessarily attacking evolution itself). He implies there is no evidence by which to support a theory postulating life was the result of spontaneous generation (for instance a series of chemical reactions that occurred in a primordial soup during the early days of our planet … or in other words
random creation).
Of course, the author is blatantly wrong! We have fossils of simple organisms over 3 billion years old, which is real evidence. The oldest skeleton of a hominid (our evolutionary ancestors) is about 4 million years old. In fact we have millions of fossils, skeletons, and other remnants of our evolutionary past that paint a very clear picture of our evolutionary history.
Therefore, it’s not only reasonable to say human beings evolved from very simple organisms, but it’s unreasonable to say we didn’t (given the evidence we have).
Now, to be fair these folks don’t usually pick a fight over evolution. They think our DNA is so complex that it couldn’t have been designed through a random process. Of course there’s the obvious problem that this is the same argument from incredulity religion is usually based on. However, the bigger problem is life didn’t start out as complex DNA structures. It started as simple organisms.
Moreover, we know in earths earliest days it was incapable of supporting life. It had to cool off before life was possible (trying tossing any organism into molten rock and metal & see what happens to it). Nevertheless we have found simple organisms that can survive in very hot (no where near molten metal hot, but very hot still the same) and unfriendly environments.
So, to sum it up … we know:
- the early earth could not support life
- eventually earth cooled down to a point where it could support very simple but unique organisms (in that they would have had to survive a very harsh environment)
- life as we know it today evolved from those very simple organisms
We also know
intelligence can form from randomness (because we’ve run evolutionary algorithms that simulate this process). In fact as far as we know randomness is the only way it could have happened. As far as the formation of the first hints of biological life (which is the threshold question), we know it was either formed by chemical reactions within our own atmosphere, or organic material from a meteor (there’s tons of organic material floating around in space believe it or not).
There’s nothing to suggest life was initiated in any way by a designer (intelligent or otherwise).
