Intelligent Design under attack

In my biological evolution class, one of the subtopics we stidied was problems with the darwinian views. The problems were discussed, such as the existence of gaps, etc. In fact, my oldest daughter told me they discussed the same thing in high school when studying the same topic. It makes me question those to continually rail the notion that it is taught as fact as a rule.

 

Paul of Eugene

I see you still haven't learned anything about thermodynamics!

 

If fossils were not formed quickly they would not form at all, they would simply decay or be consumed by other life-forms.

 

That's actually untrue. Microevolution has been observed copiously. Macroevolution has been predicted, and observations matching those predictions have been documented, though macroevolution as a whole has, as far as I know, not been observed as a whole.

</font>[/QUOTE]Micro-evolution is not macro-evolution which is what is commonly taught as evolution. There are some who now incorrectly claim micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution since other theories are being discredited.

 

What is the theory of ID? How can it be used in research?

OldRegular, what is the 2LoT? How does it preclude evolution?

 

When I was a young YEC'er myself, YEC's used to claim that microevolution was wrong. They since had to change their tune, because microevolution has now been observed and documented. It's just a long list of changes that the YEC community has had to make in their view in the last 100 or so years. YEC'ers now state that microevolution is not macroevolution, which is technically true. YEC'ers used to state that speciation was an impossibility, yet, when speciation became observed and documented, they one again changed their tune and raised the bar. I believe the current bar has been raised to development of "kind", though "kind" has been left open. If Geniation (a change in genus, which is above species) is observed, the YEC comunity will no doubt redefine "kind" to exclude genus change as evidence.

 

If people want to put their faith in the atheistic concept of evolution rather than Faith in a Creator God nothing I could say would change their mind. However, people should understand that according the concept of evolution there is no God and only the material exists.

There is a passage of Scripture that seems appropriate:

2 Timothy 4:1-5
1. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2. Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Johnv:

What scientists have tried to spontaneously create something? Was it Dr. Frankenstein?

 

I don't put religious faith in any science at all. Not evolution, not plate techtonics, not genetics, not the theories and laws of motion, etc. That doesn't change the fact that ID is not science, and has no place in the science classroom. A philosophy class, sure, but a science classroom, no.

Only to the extent that plate techtonics says there is no God, genetics says there is no God, theories of law and motion say there is no God, etc.

 

No, I think Dr. Frankenstein dealt with the reanimation of dead tissue. And by the way, it's pronounced FRAHNG-ken-steen!