It's just that your questions suck. Creationists love to claim that Evolution is Dogma, and that anyone who questions it is immediately shut down. This isn't true, I don't know what it's going to take to make Creationists understand that it's not that we are dogmatically opposed to any argument, but that YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE POORLY REASONED AND NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. Of course Evolution appears dogmatic to you, from your perspective I would assume it appears as if you raise valid criticisms that are summarily ignored or marginalized by mainstream science, and this is true, except remove the word valid.
If ever, a scientific article providing evidence conclusively disproving Evolution made it through the exhaustive peer review process, the author would win a Nobel Prize. Such a discovery would rock the foundations of every major discipline, even ones that do not have a clear link to biology, such a discovery would likely lead to a closer, more accurate answer as to how to explain diversity of life. If such evidence were presented that clearly refuted evolution, the scientific community would embrace it with open arms.
If such evidence exists, it has not been discovered yet. The reason Evolution appears so dogmatic is because every argument Creationists have so far brought to bear on it has been effectively refuted. Whether or not you understand the refutation is not mine, nor is it science's concern.
Intelligent design is based on the concept of irreducible complexity. I will try and explain why irreducible complexity is inherently logically false. The argument for irreducible complexity is a textbook example of the logical fallacy known as appeal to ignorance. It goes as follows.
P1: If life is too complex to have arisen naturally, then a complex intelligence must exist to have designed it.
P2; Life is too complex to have arisen naturally.
C: Therefore a complex intelligence must exist to have designed it.
This syllogism is logically sound, the conclusion does in fact necessarily follow from the premises, however this syllogism is not logically valid, because P1 is false. There is no way to prove that Life is too complex to arisen naturally, all you can do is find flaws in current explanations. What P1 is really saying is one of the following:
"We(I) don't know how life so complex could have arisen naturally."
You understand the difference? Even if all the parts of the eyeball could not have evolved simultaneously (they can but I digress) all it would do is attack evolution, it would not support intelligent design. It is logically false to posit the supernatural even when all other options have been rejected simply because rejection of all other options is only that, a negative conclusion reached about each of those options, the rejection of all other options would not be positive evidence for ID.
What needs to be understood is the difference with a hypothesis being COMPATIBLE with the evidence, and a hypothesis being SUGGESTED by the evidence. ID is completely compatible with all the evidence we have ever gained. It is completely conceivable that the earth was formed by some complex intelligence. However nothing we have uncovered specifically SUGGESTS intelligence.
So ill end this post with a challenge, that has gone unmet so far, but hopefully a creationist or ID proponent, after reading this post, will be better able to answer.
What evidence do you have that SUGGESTS the existence of a complex intelligence that created all life?
And don't ask me what evidence I would accept, it's your theory, you support it.
If ever, a scientific article providing evidence conclusively disproving Evolution made it through the exhaustive peer review process, the author would win a Nobel Prize. Such a discovery would rock the foundations of every major discipline, even ones that do not have a clear link to biology, such a discovery would likely lead to a closer, more accurate answer as to how to explain diversity of life. If such evidence were presented that clearly refuted evolution, the scientific community would embrace it with open arms.
If such evidence exists, it has not been discovered yet. The reason Evolution appears so dogmatic is because every argument Creationists have so far brought to bear on it has been effectively refuted. Whether or not you understand the refutation is not mine, nor is it science's concern.
Intelligent design is based on the concept of irreducible complexity. I will try and explain why irreducible complexity is inherently logically false. The argument for irreducible complexity is a textbook example of the logical fallacy known as appeal to ignorance. It goes as follows.
P1: If life is too complex to have arisen naturally, then a complex intelligence must exist to have designed it.
P2; Life is too complex to have arisen naturally.
C: Therefore a complex intelligence must exist to have designed it.
This syllogism is logically sound, the conclusion does in fact necessarily follow from the premises, however this syllogism is not logically valid, because P1 is false. There is no way to prove that Life is too complex to arisen naturally, all you can do is find flaws in current explanations. What P1 is really saying is one of the following:
"We(I) don't know how life so complex could have arisen naturally."
You understand the difference? Even if all the parts of the eyeball could not have evolved simultaneously (they can but I digress) all it would do is attack evolution, it would not support intelligent design. It is logically false to posit the supernatural even when all other options have been rejected simply because rejection of all other options is only that, a negative conclusion reached about each of those options, the rejection of all other options would not be positive evidence for ID.
What needs to be understood is the difference with a hypothesis being COMPATIBLE with the evidence, and a hypothesis being SUGGESTED by the evidence. ID is completely compatible with all the evidence we have ever gained. It is completely conceivable that the earth was formed by some complex intelligence. However nothing we have uncovered specifically SUGGESTS intelligence.
So ill end this post with a challenge, that has gone unmet so far, but hopefully a creationist or ID proponent, after reading this post, will be better able to answer.
What evidence do you have that SUGGESTS the existence of a complex intelligence that created all life?
And don't ask me what evidence I would accept, it's your theory, you support it.
