New Christian here who’s been learning a lot! There’s many other reasons why I believe other than ID. (including the fact that materialism/physicalism is being whooped by really intelligent scientists, even a lot of atheist ones)
I definitely believe in some form microevolution, and I don’t think the Earth is 6000 years old. However I am a bit suspicious about some theories of theistic evolution. However I did see with InspiringPhilosophy (who has REALLY good content) people were saying that the theory he follows regarding theistic evolution could actually STRENGTHEN the fine tuning argument
However when I see any book, Youtube Video, or creationvsevolution thread on a forum/reddit, about intelligent design, it gets utterly FLOODED with atheists smushing Christians in debate.
So is intelligent design basically 100% disproven at this point? Especially when I see people using really compelling arguments using math/physics. Even people saying how intelligent design being debunked made them completely quit being a Christian after 20 years.
I know William Lane Craig got thrashed in a debate about it but I see Stephen Meyer making a surge recently.
Intelligent design is not disproven.
It is simply not proven
- nor is it possible to prove.
The two propositions are chalk and cheese.
Take a very simple non life example.
Gallium arsenide - a semiconductor - is a man made product of intelligent design : theoretically it can exist, but it does not in nature.
However the crystals themselves do not leave any trace of the process that produced them. I cannot prove intelligent design using gallium arsenide despite the fact it is intelligent designed.
Now a middle example.
Look out of your window...
Most of the domestic and farm animals, most of the crops and plants you see, are the product of intelligent design (ie man steering characteristics)Man did not leave a trace in his steering of the evolution. Itelligent design does not leave a trace.
Now take cell development.. and the definition of life as an organism "that is self sustaining and capable of darwinian evolution"
(argue with NASA , harvard etc if you dont agree with that definition, not me)
That cell has an irreducible complexity, it needs a genome, structures to interpret it, structures to create energy and so on.
Nobody has ANY idea WHATSOEVER of the structure of that supposed first cell. Nobody knows what genome it had, except to say the horrendous complexity of RNA and DNA make them a non starter for a simple cell occuring from random chance chemistry.
So the "evolution" of the genome type is completely unknown as well. RNA world is unevidenced, and an admission that man cannot conceive of simpler than horrendously complex.
.
Before that is a complete blank. Until you know what the first cell is made of, nobody can say what the "raw materials" were.
The raw materials of a wooden house, steel frame house, or brick house are different.
Despite all the optimistic noises of materialists the status is
Abiogenesis cannot be observerd naturally, cannot be made to occur, and there is no structure for the first cell or process to it.
On scientific process that rules out all the start points for entering the scientific process with a hypothesis for abiogenesis.
Chemical abiogenesis is not even a valid hypothesis!!! It is pure conjecture. Since no experiment starting with non life ending in life or observing that process is possible.
It gets worse... The simplest known cells in our time are chemical factories of many hundreds or thousands of biochemicals, hundreds of genes. There is no known pathway from the first cell to modern cells either.
So abiognesis and evolution at a cellular level are a COMPLETE BLANK in the pathway to life.
Miller urey is an irrelevance since nobody knows what the first cell is made off.
And the protocell structures proposed now have changed little in the 50 years since they were first proposed.
Science has got nowhere. But nobody dares admit it, because it is a multibillion industry for academia.
There is a lot of smoke in literature. No fire at all. You would think it was a done deal by the way media describes it!
The obsession with it is born of the fact that for atheists it is the only game in town.
It is ironic that the current straw on which materialists hold their hopes are self catalysing polymers. Which answer only one small part of one problem. The irony is that the experimental versions of them are all a product of intelligent design! Teams of PHds who cannot keep the process going!
There is plenty of evidence of consciousness outside the brain. Increasingly science is accepting it. Hundreds of peer reviewed papers on veridical NDE and OBE. The consciousness, soul,. spirit. call it what you will, is therefore not a chemical process. And if so, abiogenesis and evolution cannot explain life. There is the spirit component from elsewhere.
One final point is so called eucharistic miracles, recently life , verified human cardiac tissue appeared in eucharistic wafer - which is not the product of any known process of fraud, several continents, forensic teams involved. So life in that case did not come from evolution.
On that basis actual evidence theistic origion of life wins and darwin is disproven by his own test..
Atheists shouting down christians on intelligent design are a good case of "empty vessels make the most sound"
.