Intelligent Design

[JosephThePoet]

Most people know of the billions of pieces of code in our DNA. Now multiply those billions by the many trillions upon trillions of variables associated with the fact that those same billions of pieces of DNA each must be turned on and off at various specific times in a structure’s growth, and that this timing must work differently depending on where in the body that particular DNA strand is.

Our current understanding of science proves that a species can evolve some, but no one has ever proven evolution across species. “Each according to their kind” is a true statement.

The “evolution theory” also claims that life was created by a slop of chemicals somehow being triggered into a life forming change. They have tried with many chemical mixes and even electrical stimulations for decades and have not once created any life.

Man knows very little of the sciences, and the more science we learn the more we should realize just how little we really do know.

 

[ClearSky]

God has given us two books to learn from, an old book and a new book. The old book is the Bible that is around since 3000 years, and the new book is nature that we began to scientifically understand since a few 100 years. DNA was discovered only 50 years ago.

We have just begun to read the new book and we still don't even understand anything in the old book. We have a lot more reading to do.

 

[shernren]

The little that we do know suggests extremely strongly that evolution is at present the best explanation for the origin of currently observable biodiversity.

Do you have any specific questions to ask or issues to raise? Or are you still lacking a detailed understanding of what evolution is and why it explains what it explains?

 

[gluadys]

Our current understanding of science proves that a species can evolve some, but no one has ever proven evolution across species. “Each according to their kind” is a true statement.

The evolution of new species has been observed. It has even been produced experimentally. But "each according to their kind" is just as true in evolution as in scripture.

If this sounds contradictory to you, then you need to look a little more deeply into what the theory of evolution actually says. It appears you are relying on hearsay testimony about the theory of evolution, and that testimony is not completely reliable.

The “evolution theory” also claims that life was created by a slop of chemicals somehow being triggered into a life forming change. They have tried with many chemical mixes and even electrical stimulations for decades and have not once created any life.

Actually, this addresses abiogenesis, not evolution. Although both fields in biology, they are not quite the same and the theory of evolution (which is about the changes in species) is independent of theories about the origin of the first biological life.

Man knows very little of the sciences, and the more science we learn the more we should realize just how little we really do know.

True, and I have never found a scientist who would disagree. Our knowledge is like a thimble of water compared to an ocean. Yet. it is also important not to underestimate what is known.

 

[busterdog]

Most people know of the billions of pieces of code in our DNA. Now multiply those billions by the many trillions upon trillions of variables associated with the fact that those same billions of pieces of DNA each must be turned on and off at various specific times in a structure’s growth, and that this timing must work differently depending on where in the body that particular DNA strand is.

Our current understanding of science proves that a species can evolve some, but no one has ever proven evolution across species. “Each according to their kind” is a true statement.

The “evolution theory” also claims that life was created by a slop of chemicals somehow being triggered into a life forming change. They have tried with many chemical mixes and even electrical stimulations for decades and have not once created any life.

Man knows very little of the sciences, and the more science we learn the more we should realize just how little we really do know.

Right.

Tea cup poodles and great danes generally don't interbreed and generally "Can't" interbreed.

But, no new species has evolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

I don't think I could ever marry a Country Music or Oakland Raidres fan. So, we are just as incompatible for breeding purposes as most of the so-called examples of evolution.

 

[Dannager]

But, no new species has evolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

I feel it's worth pointing out that, in the very article you linked, each type of speciation has a section called "observed instances" which lists examples of speciation that we have actually seen. You should probably stick to creationist propaganda websites to avoid this sort of embarrassing situation in the future.

 

[billwald]

"The evolution of new species has been observed. It has even been produced experimentally. But "each according to their kind" is just as true in evolution as in scripture."

If we had a continuous perhistorical record of every critter this would be obvious.

 

[noachian]

Here in our United Kingdom Intelligent Design is becoming popular. Not as popular as the Evolutionary Theory based on the works of Darwin and other Biological Scientists but it is certainly becoming more popular in the sphere of equality, many people want Intelligent Design to be taught along side Evolution as an alternative theory. This country has so much more important thing to worry about at the moment though pray for us please, we're lost over here

 

[Calminian]

Most people know of the billions of pieces of code in our DNA. Now multiply those billions by the many trillions upon trillions of variables associated with the fact that those same billions of pieces of DNA each must be turned on and off at various specific times in a structure’s growth, and that this timing must work differently depending on where in the body that particular DNA strand is.

Our current understanding of science proves that a species can evolve some, but no one has ever proven evolution across species. “Each according to their kind” is a true statement.

The “evolution theory” also claims that life was created by a slop of chemicals somehow being triggered into a life forming change. They have tried with many chemical mixes and even electrical stimulations for decades and have not once created any life.

Man knows very little of the sciences, and the more science we learn the more we should realize just how little we really do know.

I think intelligent design is a logically sound philosophical argument against naturalism and naturalistic explanations of origins. I think it utilizes scientific understandings and observations, but ultimately is a philosophical conclusion, which all views of origins are.

I have no problem with it. I think it's a good thing, and very effective. It is evidently what swayed atheist philosopher Antony Flew to renounce atheism.

 

[Calminian]

God has given us two books to learn from, an old book and a new book.

Actually God has given us countless books to learn from. If you want to learn about american history, you look for a history book.
There's all kinds of books out there, literal and figurative.

The old book is the Bible that is around since 3000 years, and the new book is nature that we began to scientifically understand since a few 100 years. DNA was discovered only 50 years ago.

Just to be precise, the book of nature predates modern science and all its presuppositions. Paul pointed to natural revelation in Romans chapter 1. According to him, it points to God, and reveals many things about Him, rendering man without excuse if they don't seek Him.

I agree with you about science. It requires naturalistic presuppositions and discernment is required to use it properly. But the book of nature is real and valuable.

We have just begun to read the new book and we still don't even understand anything in the old book. We have a lot more reading to do.

As observation technologies improve, we are seeing more of the glory of God, and true, the Bible needs to be looked at more carefully as well.

 

[Molal]

Right.

Tea cup poodles and great danes generally don't interbreed and generally "Can't" interbreed.

But, no new species has evolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

I don't think I could ever marry a Country Music or Oakland Raidres fan. So, we are just as incompatible for breeding purposes as most of the so-called examples of evolution.

Kudo's to buster for providing an article providing examples of speciation.

As one can see, speciation has been observed not only today (recent past), but also in the fossil record.