"Let''s start with the apparent design of the universe, and use a story of Sir Isaac Newton as an example. A deeply religious man, Newton was struck by the order that he observed in the orbits of the planets, with all of them in the same plane. He could think of no reason for this, so he attributed it to God. Of course now, thru science, we understand the gravitational dynamics in the formation of solar systems fairly well, and no longer need to invoke a god. Science is similarly showing how the rest of the universe works and eliminating the need for theistic explanations."
Except that the solar system is still quite ordered. You''ve explained how the order of the planets is maintained, but you have not explained how this order was produced in the first place. Inanimate nature cannot produce order x2nd Law of Thermodynamics), therefore inanimate nature could not have produced this, and the need for an outside force exempt from scientific law still exists. xSounds like an intelligent designer to me!)
"Now let's look at the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This states that any closed system will tend toward disorder. However, it does not apply to the Earth, because we live in an open system with energy constantly streaming in from our sun. This is the energy that powers almost all life on our planet. Thus the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution or any living being."
Earth may not be a closed system, but the universe is. Since evolution is assumed to be a law of the universe and not just earth, it falls within the closed system of the universe, therefore the law of thermodynamics applies and evolution fails.
"Next, let's consider the laws of physics. They are quantified explanations of how matter and energy behave - not anything like man-made laws. We currently don't know why the parameters of matter and energy have certain values, but that doesn't mean that some god set them that way."
It doesn''t mean that a lifeless, self-existent universe set them that way either.
"It''s also important to note that life is exceedingly rare in the universe - even if it exists on every planet and moon. All we do know is that life exists on one oasis - Earth. Most of the universe is nearly empty, and almost all of the matter is in stars or nebulae. Any sort of life that we can imagine only has a chance on planets or moons. The universe was not designed for lifex in practically the entire universe conditions are extremely hostile to life."
Then spontaneous generation, needed for evolution could not have happened. If the universe is so "hostile to life" then how did it create life in the first place? If life was created so easily by the universe xvia the big bang theory), then why has life not shown up in other parts of the universe?
"The core argument in Intelligent Design is the fact that evolutionary biologists can't yet fully explain all the features of lifex therefore ID clxxxs that life must have been designed by some intelligent being. This is the old "god of the gaps" argument, and it is scientifically, logically, and historically flawed."
If there are mysteries in nature that cannot be explained in nature, why would we keep looking to nature to explain them?
"ID is scientifically flawed because it violates the ground rules of science by allowing supernatural xmeaning outside of nature) causation."
Yes its called metaphysics. Just because we believe metaphysics is scientific does not mean we''re flawed.
"ID is logically flawed in two ways. The first logical flaw in ID is that it''s based on a lack of knowledge - explaining gaps in knowledge by invoking the magic of an unknown xperhaps supernatural) being. Like all "god of the gaps" arguments, ID is not falsifiable, can't even be tested, and says nothing about the moral qualities of this unknown being, god, or gods."
Ah, I wondered when this accusation was coming. It''s common among evolutionists: Those who don''t believe evolution are stupid, uninformed hicks. Because we don''t believe the "divine theory of evolution", we must have a "lack of knowledge". Yes, attacking the intelligence of creationists seems to be one of the leading arguments for evolution today.
"The second logical flaw is in the assumption it makes that, because something is supposedly very highly unlikely, something else must have designed it."
No, if something is "highly unlikely" then we need to look to other explanations for it, IT''S BASIC LOGIC. And one of those other possible explanations is intelligent design.
"What ID proponents blatantly ignore, because they take the existence of their god as a given, is the fact that this unknown designer must be even more complex, and thus less probable, than what ID was invoked to explain."
Creation needs a creator, but the creator does not need a creator. xits the basic definition of GOD) Since GOD is the creator and transcendent, He can be as complex as He wishes. The intelligent designer is not bound to the laws of His own creation xsince he''s the creator of those laws), anymore than a sculptor is not bound to the laws of his clay pot.
"ID is historically flawed because science has shown excellent progress in explaining the world around us, and there is nothing to show that evolutionary biology should be abandoned simply because it has not yet explained the origins of every single process of life. Because biochemical processes don't leave behind fossils, it's not as easy to explain their origins as it is for bone structures that do fossilize. However, evolutionary biologists are making excellent progress in understanding the origins and processes of the biochemistry of life."
Ah yes. Since the fossil records dont correspond with evolution, evolutionists now clxxx "Because biochemical processes don't leave behind fossils, it's not as easy to explain their origins as it is for bone structures that do fossilize." If I recall Darwin expected to find in the future plenty of fossils to validate evolution. But in the decades since, no such thing has happened, the fossils just don''t correspond with evolution. So, now the evolutionists must change their story and say "well, now, a biological process just doesn''t leave behind many fossils" If thats so, dont point to the fossil record to validate your theory!
"Intelligent Design is simply not sciencex it''s religion dressed up to look like science to the uninformed. It is mystical pseudoscience"
The evolutionist''s favorite argument! Evolution is fact. Those who dare question this divine theory are "uninformed" aka idiots.
"I''d like to address a common statement made by creationists - that scientists have supposedly never actually witnessed evolution, so evolution either: a) isn''t real science, or b) hasn''t happened. First, this is a gross mischaracterization of science. There are many processes that scientists can understand without directly witnessing them, such as much of geology or fusion at the cores of stars. "
Of course there are processes that are witnessed but are known to be true. But this doesn''t mean that evolution can be set on the same shelf as the law of gravity. No credible scientists question gravity, or the fusing of stars, but there has always existed a faction of scientistsxmany with no religous motivations) who question evolution. This is not uninformed Bible-thumping hicks xnot that theres anything wrong with Bible-thumping!) versus science as evolutionists love to think, but these are credible and logical problems with a theory that has always had a credible dissident faction.
"Second, this statement ignores the fact that evolution usually takes thousands or millions of years. It''s like looking a tree and saying that it is not growing because you can''t see any growth in a day"
Except that in a tree, a person can look at the tree rings and see the whole tree''s history and dare I say evolution layed out to see. But biological evolution cannot produce this. The fossil records which should act like the story telling rings of a tree simply do not do this for evolution.
"Third, scientists have actually witnessed the rapid evolution of new species - the apple moth from the hawthorn moth, a new species of polychaetes fish, and many more."
This is called microevolution, and it does happen, no one disputes this. But to use microevolution to justify macroevolution is unacceptable. Just because a moth adapts into a different moth, does not mean that a single-cell organism evolved into that moth.
"i honestly dont belive in god. why belive in something when its not real. thats like praying to santa. you never see him either."
How do you know GOD isn''t real? Just because you don''t see Him doesn''t mean He''s not there.
"why belive in something when its not real... you never see him either."
Funny, just a few paragraphs above, an atheist was saying the exact opposite to defend evolution: "There are many processes that scientists can understand without directly witnessing them" Apparently evolution can be "not witnessed" but be treated as fact, but GOD who also is not physically witnessed is nothing more than "uninformed psuedoscience". Good ole evolutionists! Oh sorry I should say old not ole, if they see that Southern accent they''ll just dismiss me as a Bible-thumping hick xthe ultimate insult for an evolutionist!). We wouldn''t want that would we????