Well here I go, I will try to give the absolute best explanation of why we (people on this forum) debate things like YEC, ID, Theory of Evolution to a point of relative absurdity.
I mean you take a look at science which states that it cannot comment on the supernatural, hey that's great because I already know that God exists because what I believed in faith has had the personal testimony of God's faithfulness to equivocate His existence to me personally. I feel that what is being argued about is not actually science but rather is just dressed up in scientific garb. Science deals basically with what is able to be observed and cataloged, not necessarily repeatable, imagine the job of the taxonomist who would have to actually reproduce each animal they wanted to identify, the task would be impossible, so they catalog them according to observation. That is great as well, after all science is not just biology, there is geology, anthropology, cosmology, astronomy etc... , and they do intermingle, each building upon testable theories of the other to give us a good overview of what we see today.
The problem lies not in science though, the problem is what science cannot do, mainly teleology; are we here for a purpose. There are many though who extrapolate that since our existence can be reasonably explained through a naturalistic process that inherent with that comes the realization that we are basically without purpose except that which we make ourselves. I say that idea is so critically flawed because it violates one of the scientific precepts of inability to comment discerning the supernatural. I also have asked a very tough question of naturalistic evolutionists, if a natural process is unpredictable then why is evolution shown as a linear progression? On the surface the question may seem to be the failing questions of a very uneducated person, but let me explain. Is a simpler design not much more successful ala bacteria, there are literally bajillions (yes that is an actual number in my book) of them, and if the nature of nature is to be unpredictable, why can't evolution say start with a cat and work its way to both ends like a line of infinity? I say the linear progression is a direct representation of an inherit design driven by purpose, why else would the progression not have stopped or been broken. Life is not common or easy to come by, yet we see that despite all the odds stacked against it here we are today.
Furthermore, to the naturalist, if life were found say on Mars via some meteorite that landed on earth, why speculate that the life originated on Mars, after all they hold in their hands proof that planetary material is exchanged. So can one reasonably assume that one of those gigantic meteor craters could not have kicked up dirt and debris that found its way to Mars to export life that already existed on earth?
No, what we argue about is about ideologies, the naturalist claims that there is no purpose in life, the ID(er) says that there is, some have taken an extreme view in direct opposition of the naturalist and stand firm in YEC. The ID(er) must, at least in their own minds, destroy the fundamental basis of such an abhorrent position based on science. So the battle wages on, the naturalist says look there is no God based on the evidence and the ID(er) says that the Bible says you would say that. So they wage war, ad infinitum, nobody will win, just more innocent bystanders will be drawn into the frey.
So where do we stand, both sides try to make science say something it cannot, and based on these failed attempts try to persuade the gullible or the ignorant, never mindful of the fact that they are living in a house of cards built on sand in a land full of earthquakes. So here we are, with science by its own design unable to truthfully answer the most basic of questions "Why am I here?"
I think I understand your ideas a bit better, though should remember that TE's don't accept the idea of ID, myself included. For me the biggest flaw with ID is that it gives up, it packs up it's things and says, "Beyond this point nothing can be discovered, move along people." And maybe they are correct on some things, or they will be correct on other things. But as I posted on here, or another topic, the time to say, "Beyond this point science isn't allowed, or can't go because it can't learn anything." is after science has exausted to death every attempt to learn. Every single Iriducible complexity the ID's have proposed has fallen apart, many long before Behe proposed his idea of IDC *for short*. It's a argument from ignorance, not that the people are ignorant, but their understanding and knowldge of what they attack is.
The problem with ID is that it tries to setup artificial boundries on science, because to them those boundries are what keep their faith I would say. But they are god of the gaps, and as many TE's, and even Dawkins and others have stated, is the most dangerous position for theist to hold. If you bank hard on the belief that ID or YEC must be true, then as TOE is proven more and more every day the positions become more and more unatendable. Though ID's and YEC's arn't without their merrits, I've learnt alot about evolution and such just learning to refute their claims. And ID's have probably help push science to explain things better and fill in the gaps of knowledge.
Problem is your equating too much naturalistic science with atheists, naturalistic science doesn't say it's all there is just as you pointed out it's all that science can explain, science can't directly refute supernatural, but it can refute individual claims, as they are testable for the most part. The bacterial fleggellum, there have been some interesting experiements, one of my more favorite was where they removed or disabled a few of the main proteins required to makt the flegellum work, left the bacteria in a low food source, just enough to duplicate for a short time, but they would have to move, and within a few short generations they got the Flegallum working again, but what was interesting is, it wasn't just a patch job, they found a route to fix it that was different then the original.
As for the great chain of being, this isn't how evolution works, this is sort of a creationist strawman, a every old one but one nonetheless. I'm sure you've been told or heard that evolution is more like a bush, or the curren model is more of a wheelwith everything going back to a single point, in practical terms, were no more evoled then bacteria, everything that currently exists is as evolved as everything else, they have all had 3 billion years to reach this point. It's not like Bacteria stopped evolving after protozoa broke off. things evolve to adapt to their enviorments, bacteria have no pressure to become multicelluar, and certain mutations might be needed for them to become protozoa like. The closest to the chain of life is that things evolve to fit niches, when land first opened up life evolved on land, not because it was evolving up up and beyond, but because a niche that nothing filled was opened and gave advantages.
Evolution rarly can go backwards, and it's not directed, even if there would be an advantage for something to evolve back the way it came if those steps along the way don't confer any advantages to helping it survive or procreate then it won't do so. there are many things in the body that are poorly designed, the giraffe nerve is the famous example, it's already evolved there, there are no steps that could be taken to fix the problem so it remains. The human eye can't go backwards and fix the blindspot, but evolution has found a different path to do so like with the squid wich is identical to our eye but evolved on a different path so that it didn't have the blind spot.
Maybe if you give more examples I cna try to explain them.
Remember there are a few things that are required for evolution to go a path.
1. It must be an advantage either for natural selection, or sexual selection.
2. Each step must confer a better advantage then the previous, evolution can't lead directly down a path if something gives a disadvantage for a few generations but gives a big benefit later. BUT there are examples in the famous ecoli experiment where multiple parts that are neutral can confer a advantage later, if the mutations have no effect beneficial or not alot the way so arn't selected for or against.
3. The mutations must appear, there are many advantages we can think of that would have made humans of various animals much better, but if the mutations either can't happen, or don't nothing will happen.
Thats why the planet doesn't look like a giant furry convention, or more then a half dozen animals such as ravens, octopus, prarie dolphins, chimpanzee's and such show above average intelligence, because for many animals above a point doesn't nescarily confer an advantage. Have to remember kent hovind's famous, "Everything is evolving to be bigger, better faster smarter." isn't true, if being slower but tougher is an advantage it will be selected for, many animals have shrunk iun size because it helped.
Hope that helps a bit....man didn't think I was going to poist that much heh :> Maybe take it to PM's unless others want it to continue here.
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
