and so it continues…
Out of context: Reply #10
- Started
- Last post
- 25 Responses
- discipler0
I don't know what to say:
Point5
(Nov 8 05, 15:49)
-------------------------------My recommendation is... get used to it. Because you are going to see more and more boards accepting this policy on teaching the controversy.
For 150 years we have bought into and have been teaching our kids, materialistic philosophy masquerading as science - namely, Darwinism. Now, specifically, within the last 30 years we have accumulated new scientific data. Data which demonstrates that the cell, which Darwin thought was a simple plasma blob, is really a liliputian world of mind boggling complexity, with machinery beyond anything humans have devised. With digital sequential code, with backup and protection mechanisms and information transport shuttles and on and on and on. And we know that whenever we see digitally coded information and complex machinery in any other realm of experience... an intelligent entity was the source. So, the inference to a designer is perfectly logical and is good science.
We also know that Darwin's mechanism of Natural Selection + Unguided Mutation, is incapable of producing this machinery on the biochemical level. The removal of any one component from Irreducibly Complex machinery... and the machine breaks completely. It requires all of it's parts at once, or not at all. Something Darwinian gradualism cannot produce.
When we combine this data with the fact that the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of millions of novel body plans and then stasis in every geological column (this indicates the direct opposite of what the Darwinian Narritive would have us believe), we can logically infer... design.
When we learn that the physical laws of our planet and our position in the solar system (and galaxy) are fine-tuned to such a precise tolerance that any slight change would make organic life impossible, we can logically infer... design.
See, it's not "God of the Gaps". It's making a logical hypothesis, based on the data. The shoe is actually on the other foot here: suggesting that "if we wait long enough, we'll find some purely naturalistic explanation..."... balderdash. This is Evolution of the Gaps.
The reason ID will continue to grow and be embraced is because it is based on science, not a wishful narritive. You can't argue with the science. And this is what more and more people are realizing, as they cut through the emotional rhetoric and political bull.