intelligent design
Out of context: Reply #4
- Started
- Last post
- 383 Responses
- discipler0
What you see consistantly in these media treatments is gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the actual issues. The very article you've linked here is yet another example - replete with error.
I have studied this issue to a degree that should probably merit some sort of honorary phD. Seriously, never in my life have I invested in the research of an issue like this, including my time in university. The fact is: this is about good/current science vs. old science. Don't let the media coverage and the Darwinian fundamentalists try to convince you that it is anything else (i.e. religion vs. science, creationism vs. science, etc...). And an HONEST investigator into this issue will quickly realize the truth... it's certainly not obscured.
What it boils down to is that science is starting to discover that many of the core tenets of Darwinian Naturalism are completely false. That natural selection working with random mutation is in an unguided context is not a sufficient mechanism to produce change in biological systems, at the scale that we see. And that life at the molecular level is composed machines, purely nano-technology. We know now that a single cell contains clasps, pulleys, rotary engines, turbines, shuttle vehicles, and machinery more complex than anything a human has ever devised. We know now that a single strand of DNA contains more digitally coded (sequential) information than an entirely library of books and that is has backup and error-protection mechanisms. We know now that these impossibly complex molecular systems are irreducible, meaning that if you remove one component, just one... and the entire system fails. Darwinian gradualism cannot produce these machines because they require all of their parts at once, to function. Natural selection would prevent this.
When we combine data like this at the molecular level with facts about the fossil record and how it displays no true transitions between species and when we realize that science only observes mutations within a species and no information gaining mutations that can produce novel species, we can safely conclude: intelligence is at the heart of things. And when we look at the Cambrian explosion where, in history past, millions of phyla suddenly appear in the fossil record without having had enough time to evolve, we can conclude: design.