>> Thursday, May 28, 2009
An Intelligent Design supporter, William A. Dembski, came up with five questions that evolutionists would rather dodge.
1) According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms “is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin’s bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?
2) According to evolutionist Richard Dawkins, the “evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.” Yet he also states, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?
3) The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that looks for signs of intelligence from distant space. Should biologists likewise be looking for signs of intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not? Could actual intelligent design in biological systems be scientifically detectable?
4) Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans? Evolutionists claim that these structures evolved. But if so, how? Could such machines have features that place them beyond the reach of evolution?
5) What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?
Dr. Gary Hurd and Jason Rosenhouse wrote their rebuttals.
Jason made this statement: "Intelligent Design proponents spend most of their time leveling bogus charges against evolution". However, Jason spends his time attacking Dembski and Intelligent Designers and claiming that they do not know what they are talking about. He doesn't attempt to answer the questions at all. It sounds like he is dodging the question.
Dr. Gary Hurd makes this statement: "Scientific Creationism wholeheartedly embraced fundamentalist Christian dogma".
Dr. Gary also spends his time attacking Dembski himself and some of his statements, but avoids and dodges his five questions completely.
It is funny how he attacks people who hold to the Christian dogma, but he doesn't attack himself for holding to his atheistic dogma.
It is quite annoying that they think that their theory has been proven without a doubt and anybody who attempts to discredit it, they attack, call them ignorant, and completely avoids the questions they address.
That fact is that there are many well written papers that discredit evolution. There are also very good reasons not to believe it.
The intelligent design website has a list of some papers here:
Here is the problem I see. You can go back and forth with these two theories, but who is telling the truth?
These papers attacking Creation Science claims that creationist are nuts. They state that an expert in the field would be able to demonstrate support for their evolutionary theories. But, what if an expert in the field doesn't support their evolutionary theory? Are they going to give the scientist credit? Dr. John Morris is a creationist who is a geologist. Shouldn't he know about dating methods? Of course the evolutionist accuse him of being crazy.
There are creation scientist in all fields of science that are openly or secretly rejecting the theory of evolution.
There are many former evolutionist who have changed their views to creation science.
Dr. AE Wilder-Smith has 3 Doctorates. Is he crazy for not believing in evolution? Why doesn't he get credit?
So, again, why do they dismiss creationist so quickly? All of these scientist get dismissed by evolutionist because they have a "dogma" that they believe in, like the evolutionist don't. I have also noticed that for every article on the web about creationism, there is about 5 articles attacking the creationist. I think that the atheist are really scared because the creationist and intelligent design people are making ground.
I am not a biologist, or a chemist, but I am a computer scientist. What I understand is the complexity of a computer and the extreme complexity of DNA and ultimately the complexity of life. To me, the theory of order coming from chaos doesn't hold water at all. They give their "so called" examples of this happening, but their examples are small, and hard to grasp for me. I mean, for me to be convinced of evolution, I don't want some tiny example, but I want to see something big to be convinced. I want them to create something as complex as a computer by random chance and then I will be convinced. These evolutionist takes this idea for granted and don't even consider it a problem anymore. They barely even argue it anymore. They are more concerned at attacking the creationist. They go after them religiously. Well, maybe that is because they don't like people discrediting their religion. They don't like the idea that people still believe in God. They are still trying to destroy God, but God won't be destroyed that easily. You are really going to have to bring more evidence then the fruit fly, and the IDA fossil to convince me. They claim that the ordinary layman, not being a scientist, are being influenced by the creationist and that is why a recent poll shows that more people believe in creation than evolution. I don't think that is it at all. I think that more and more people realize that random chance doesn't bring life, and this world would be a lot worse if people didn't believe in God.