The one thing that creationism and evolutionism have in common - is that they are both religious statements on the subject of origins.
Evolutionism argues "THERE IS NO GOD" and the proceeds to try to answer the question "well then - why is there life".
In all fairness, T.E.ist believe that the process that God used to bring
species about was universal common descent. The problem is that the
interpretation of scientific evidence is solely "induction." Thousands and
even 10's of thousands of inductions, BTW, but clearly a model or paradigm for such induction is Ernst Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny."
When I was a theistic evolutionist, I was guilty of taking the processes by which God uses to bring variety to the species, and falsely inducing this process as a mechanism for all common descent (with modification).
It is a very very complicated deception and sometimes referred to as the
second greatest "lie" ever told (the first being any lie that contradicts that Jesus died a substitutionary death for the sins of mankind on the cross).
I would agree that Neo-Darwinism is a "religious science" (not to be confused with the cult that was founded by Ernest Holmes in 1927),
but I would argue that intelligent design and special creation are falsifiable. How?
Falsify the Law of Biogenesis. It can not be done. It is testable just like the Law of Gravity. In order to falsify biogenesis it has to occur naturally
with natural conditions. This is common sense that it will never happen
any more than a bolt of lightning can come along and assemble a bunch
of car parts into an automobile. We are "safe" for the next thousand
years or even ten thousand years to claim that biogenesis is falsifiable.
Mike Behe makes the same claim with bacterial flagellum. If someone
can grow a bacterial flagellum without the gene being present then they
have falsified intelligent design. There is NO problem with making this
assertion. It is common sense that we are safe for centuries unless
satan performs miracle after miracle in a lab to deceive the world which
I doubt would ever happen. An outboard motor is not going to assemble
itself, neither is a flagellum. Electricity is not going to assemble a
computer from parts, neither is lightning going to assemble a living cell
from primordial soup (even if we give them the organelles).
Both ID and the Law of Biogenesis are falsifiable. So is the impossibility
of a precursor for RNA. This is not about religious belief, this is about
common sense. This is about scientific observation. Somewhere, years
ago, someone made the claim that science could only address natural
processes. IF God is sustaining the universe, then guess what... there
IS no random, and there IS no real true natural process because "mother
nature" is a figment of ignorance (ignoring the Creator). Everything is
cosmically the result of the super natural so the claim that science can not conclude the super natural is a logical fallacy. This may be an over-
simplification, but cosmically it is true when you take the argument to
its logical ends.
ID claims that it is not a religious belief because it is scientifically impossible to conclude anything else BUT design when you look at the Law of Biogenesis and the Information that is present in codons encoding for amino acids.
Michael
Not all DET is atheistic. Some people are just deceived by thousands of inductions.
DET = Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. Evolution = speciation to the DET biologist so they believe it is observed (and speciation is).
