Can a theist give a well written response to why natural selection ISNT a good argument against Intel Design?

Question

To The dude: I do not think they can write one that is true, I'm not sure it is possible, what I want is for someone who has actually thought about it to give me any real reason someone would disagree with it AFTER having studied it.

I misspoke, instead of intelligent design i meant to say the argument from design. The difference being that the argument from design goes something as follows

"Look at these intricate and apparently designed things! Someone must have made them!"

and intelligent design goes

"Everything has a begining and an end that I know of, so the universe must have been made by a creator."

Natural selection doesnt really say anything about the start of the universe, but it DOES explain why we have such a diversity of life, and why it came about. The argument against THAT is what I am after.

Answer 1

It has to do with genetics, the root of the fallacy of the speciation part of Natural Selection. Natural selection just describes the natural processes by which genes which are better suited for an environment will increase in population, and be spread. However natural selection does not provide a mechanism for adding to the DNA, to create more complex beings. In Darwins time there was no concept of genetics, so to him it seemed plausible hey these things can change, but the underlying mechanism IMPLY THE OPPOSITE. All the variations which occur during meiosis (fertilization) are due to random chance, so this means the offspring will have a new combination of alleles for the same AMOUNT of genes. No where does the natural selection, explain the additional of genetic material. Ah, you didn't think I forgot mutation did you, Mutations are of several type, missense, substitution, a couple others I can't remember off hand. Well my point is that what induces this mutation of a specific base pair in natural conditions! hmm think about this one
Then there is, how does a mutation, if it explained how they occur naturally (ie bad DNA polymerase or whatever other possible explanation), modify a species such that it is unable to reproduce with the species it was concieved from. Contemplate that one.

God willing that will be my thesis, I am only first year science, but Darwin will be gone, just like phrenology. I know the argument I gave here only took me about 5 minutes, but God willing I will develop this into a coherent set of arguments (not just based on rhetoric, rather scienctic explanation of experiments) against the origin of species by means of natural selection.

Lastly, ask any evolutionist, how the first cell formed? and look at the dismayed look. My biology prof admitted there was no explanation.

Then look up, and see the planet as just a tiny sphere in the big picture, then go find/purchase/borrow a Qu'ran (read it fully) then get to your local mosque and testify "There is no diety worthy of worship besides God and that Muhammad is the last and final messenger"

I shall see you in the afterlife if you follow my prescribed advice,
oh another interesting thing

[010:036] And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, God is All-Knower of what they do.

Answer 2

It isn't a good argument because natural selection is not something denied by creationists. Natural selection is observed to have happened in nature. But the problem with evolutionists is that they have credited Natural selection with more power than can be observed. Natural selection does not answer the question of where the information come from in the first place. Natural selection can only select what is already there. It does not answer the question as to the origins of what is already there. So natural selection is not an argument against design at all. ID says that the genetic information resident in organisms are from an intelligent source. Natural selection simply states that adaptations take place in response to changes in surroundings. But there are limits to such adaptations. Natural selection may account for the changes in the sizes of finches' beaks, but they do not account for the origin of birds nor their beaks.

Answer 3

Sure. A theist could simply argue thus:

"What is natural selection? Who/what created the events that put that into place? How was it, in fact, carried out?"

Natural selection is hardly of concern to a theist since the theist believes it is all the doing of a particular deity. Any argument to the contrary can be answered with a simple "What happened before that?" Natural selection and science can't yet, and possibly won't ever be able to, answer the quintessential question about "What happened at the very beginning of everything?" The theist takes great pride in this dilemma.

Answer 4

Bla: As a "theist" I have written a response from a very lengthy, scientific view on this topic . SEE : Why extremists and religious people are so much against DARWIN ! This question is still open; therefore, you will find your answer there ! I warn you though. It is rather, lengthy ... very lengthy and saturated with scientific research, as you will find ... I'm sure !!!

p.s. Do you really think that I would follow Christianity with out checking out the score on Evolution ? Not THIS guy !!!

Answer 5

Natural selection would only explain why there was so much diversity if evidence of one species evolving into another were found. This evidence has not been found. If it had occured when man was said to have split off from the common ancestor that he supposedly shared with the apes then there would be examples of it found all around us.

Answer 6

Happy Holidays

Answer 7

I stayed up and watch a countrywide Geographic software final night. you've gotten enjoyed it. technology is last in on the beginnings of guy and you would be shocked at what they're now featuring to the commonplace public. All men on the face of the earth carry one particular genetic chromosomal illness. this suggests each and every guy is descended from one guy or woman ancestor. a guy's Y chromosome is inherited from his father, so the information seems especially sturdy. the only area of the presentation I disagree with is their connection with the donor as Adam. i've got faith Noah became that source. It became a illness, inspite of each and every thing. in line with threat at some point technology will stumble on what it potential to be human. The human information could have basically as honestly been located in an aardvark, hippopotamus, or dragon fly. They did a especially sturdy interest of demonstrating that guy is unique from something of God's introduction. each and all the confusion seems to lie in the thought that this area of workmanship is a organic occurrence. organic determination would not have given guy this variety of useful benefit over different species, it may look, because maximum of others have basically long previous extinct. it somewhat is principally mankind's Christian community that defends God as writer, so it somewhat is probably no longer astounding to locate few non-Christians who help clever layout. won't or no longer that could be a brilliant day whilst technology finally concludes that organic determination became the clever layout of the writer for the animal He could at some point provide His Spirit? That one guy who fathered all of present day mankind could be called Adam.

Answer 8

Natural selection is a scientific theory to explain the evolution of various things on earth. It is not the absolute truth to be adopted for denying other scientific or religious theories. We have to learn much more to know the realities of things. It is no use wasting time in criticism, dispute or imposing our limited knowledge on other people.

Answer 9

Try reading "A Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. He gives just the response you want to read. He does it very well. It is possible.

Answer 10

Yes, anything can be well written. Truth and eloquence are two different things.