Evolutionary theory declares that everything has a mere appearance of design. Richard Dawkins is probably the leading proponent of evolutionary theory.
Dawkins writes: Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
He goes on to say: ..the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker...
Nevertheless, Dawkins is an atheist who staunchly maintains that the design we see is merely an illusion -- that these amazingly complex systems are an accidental product of natural selection.
Interestingly, in all other fields of human endeavor we find that "design necessitates a designer." Thus, design detection methodology is a prerequisite for many disciplines, including archaeology, anthropology, etc.
Because of the metaphysical implications of life resulting from "Intelligent Design", a surprisingly large number of us seek to reject the foregoing statements and find a mechanism by which complex biologic machines may arise naturally by random chance.
However, I was now seeing a tremendous inconsistency...
When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!
2006-12-23 15:42:23 · 15 answers · asked by ? 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Remarkably, the SETI project, a multi-billion dollar effort to scan the cosmos for some indication of intelligence, is based on one simple notion. If we find radio waves that contain any type of ordered sequence of sounds, then we've discovered intelligence somewhere in the universe! Think about that? The whole premise of these scientists is that you can't have ordered sound (such as the blips and dashes in a Morse code transmission) without an intelligent force behind them. To me, that's huge!
Charles B. Thaxton, PhD in Chemistry and Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University, agrees:
…an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.
2006-12-23 15:43:12 · update #1
If you take into account a slow gradual climb of evolution over millions of years, natural selection is quite easy to accept. Whether or not the seed of life was intelligently created or was spontaneous with not be decided her and futhermore how do you know that either is correct. You haven't from your own admission, applied your life to anything but drugs and porn until sometime recently when you say you found God.
2006-12-23 16:06:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
This entire thing makes sense if you've read, ironically, Richard Dawkins' book, "The Blind Watchmaker". Natural selection allows for both the appearance of design as well as some of the flaws in the human body. Natural selection doesn't look down the road in selecting prefererrable traits - it looks to how certain traits will help now.
You're false when you say "there is no third way". There is no law saying very primitive cells couldn't come from very complex non-living material. The only spontaneous generation which was disproved was that of complex organisms.
2006-12-23 23:48:53 · answer #2 · answered by Nowhere Man 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Yes sir. he conveniently sets aside reality as an illusion, who give him that right, to say,well it by all judgements appears tp be designed but we must think that it is not, in order to satisfy our theories, or else it will appear that theist have won. What a fraud.
Very good stuff, thank you.
Especially the selective acceptance and rejection of visible design by that humorous fraud Dawkins , who I would crush in a debate .
The argument is not about what man designs versus nature as one blind worshipper of lab coats and glasses posited it, but about what reveals to our minds that something is designed, wether man made it or not. What is a sign of design? The cosmos , even Dawkins admits, is a wonderful example(appearance) of design, but he just rejects it. Why ? because he doesn't want that, and then you have the equivalent of a bunch of illiterate peasants in the eigth century bowing down to their priest and who get just as nasty, defensive and ready to fight as those ignorant masses did, if you don't worship the same icon. They are the descendants of the idolaters of the past, who blindly trust to "authorities". They falsely accuse us of what they really are, and we prove them wrong everyday, by our ability to argue straight from our minds, just using simple logic, while they must look everything up and copy some authority that they never confirmed but read off the internet or some other place, because we all know that the internet is the word of god, divinely inspired, writers who are infallible and reliable witnesses publish there.
I mean it is sickening and sad.
Is it more probable that the masses ar correct nowadays when they were always wrong? The masses tend to follow and trust and bow to any man in a white lab coat, while the few are independent, certainly Christians are the few.
2006-12-24 00:17:59 · answer #3 · answered by Socinian F 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
"Interestingly, in all other fields of human endeavor we find that "design necessitates a designer." "
Sorry, evolution is not a human endeavor, even if the sciences used to explain it are.
There are known mechanisms for everything from the formation of initial amino acids (see Murchison meteorite) to transitional fossil forms. So neither spontaneous generation nor creation are necessary, only a better understanding of the complexity levels defining the line between organic protien and life form.
2006-12-24 00:01:46 · answer #4 · answered by neil s 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
All of the answers so far were made after the additional information was posted yet no one even acknowledged that the criteria scientists place on ascertaining the source of life here on earth is outside of the bounds of the criteria placed on what constitutes evidence of intelligent life from somewhere else in the universe. "The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;" just as God said in the bible, but only those with eyes to see with will see it.
2006-12-24 00:02:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
If life happen by some random act, or by chance, why do humans beget humans, chickens beget chickens and apples begets apples. There is no proof that some life, plant or animal, just happen lately. All these things happen just once, how stupid do you have be to believe that. We have to show compassion for these people, and not jail them for being so dumb. I love them but they are just wrong.
2006-12-24 00:24:36 · answer #6 · answered by bigslick60 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Chemical crystal structure can be remarkably complex yet they undergo self assembly processes.
Additionally the capsule of many viruses which are also quite complex also self assemble.
Given time and the proper conditions many things which seem rather unlikely become thermodynamically favorable.
2006-12-23 23:47:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
Everyone has a right to their own opinions. Mr. Dawkins thinks it's ludicrous that anyone would believe the bible. Okay.
I believe the bible. One day each of us will see whose beliefs are accurate. I'm willing to wait.
2006-12-23 23:45:23 · answer #8 · answered by Esther 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Not all people are wise,.. just being alive should be enough for people to know God is here. The time of shame is upon us.
2006-12-23 23:51:31 · answer #9 · answered by spir_i_tual 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your argument might have had merit...
if radio transmitters were alive and could evolve.
As it is, you're just demonstrating your ignorance, which doesn't give me any new information since I already knew about it.
2006-12-24 00:01:12 · answer #10 · answered by eldad9 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋