Search results

Stu wrote: Behe doesn't reject any observable feature of evolution. Behe accepts that species evolve, therefore, Behe is an evolutionist not a creationist. ID accepts that species evolve, therefore, ID is not creationism. You gave the definition of a creationist as one that denies species...

Quote from Teleologist: But Behe doesn't argue that species don't evolve which is what you say defines a creationist. Behe applies IC not to species but to molecular machines which go back to the origin of life. Stu replies: Oh come on now Tele. Don't start denying Behe is a creationist...

Stu wrote: But Behe doesn't deny that species evolve. ID doesn't deny that species evolve. Therefore, ID isn't creationism and Behe isn't a creationist. Stu wrote: But Behe doesn't argue that species don't evolve which is what you say defines a creationist. Behe applies IC not to...

Stu wrote: Your definition of creationist is correct but it doesn't apply to Behe or Intelligent Design which is clearly explained in the opening post of this thread. Stu wrote: I didn't leave anything out. The point I was making is that Crick & Orwell aren't considered to be...

I would like to focus on the origin of life on earth rather than the origin of the universe. We can't prove that an intelligence exists that created the universe but we do know that an intelligence exists that has the potential to seed distant planets with life. This is human intelligence. If...

What would happen if the creationists began to embrace the critic’s watered-down definition of creationism? One may attempt to define “Creationist” as anyone who believes Life was “created” rather than emerging from non-intelligent forces. If one waters down the definition in this way...

Acronym wrote: Define creationism.

When you ask ID critics what would cause them to merely suspect design they are stumped. They can only come up with things that amount to a proof of design. Since all investigations begin with suspicions it is no wonder that the ID critics think investigating ID is a waste of time. ID theorists...

kjkent1 wrote: Why do you continue to portray this debate as design versus evolution? Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.

kjkent1 wrote: Evolutionary biologist Denis Lamoureux says: Knowing that organisms evolve is not a positive reason for excluding design from each and every biotic feature. Evolution and design can co-exist. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by...

kjkent1 wrote: There is no razzle-dazzle magic bullet test that proves ID. If there was then ID would be a fact and not a hypothesis. Why expect such a test? Science has provided no methodology that can distinguish between design and non-design in an experimentally testable fashion...

drtomaso wrote: So its wrong to consider something that looks and functions like a machine to be a literal machine if we don't know who designed it?

Hansel H wrote: Neither am I. ID is not anti-evolution. Things can be designed to evolve. Evolution can be designed. Evolution can be used by design.

kjkent1 wrote: What do you mean by "test", precisely? You can't really test a historical proposition in the same way that you test things in the experimental sciences. That is, you can't test to see if something did happen in the same way that you can test to see if something will happen under...

KJkent1 wrote: I think it could have originated via a goal-directed form of evolution. I reject the notion that it's the product of an accidental, coincidental process.

FerdinandAlx wrote: You previously said: "the problem with intelligent design is that in its explanation it focuses not on the design but on the designer." Now you are saying ID needs to focus on the designer. I don't get it. In any event, there is no reason to go looking for a designer...

FerdinandAlx wrote: Not true. ID is focused precisely on the design and not the designer. It is the ID critics that insist on bringing the designer into these discussions. Go back to page 534 and read the article Why ID Doesn’t Identify the Designer (Part 1).

Stu replies: Cells reproduce. Molecular machines do not reproduce. They are assembled within the cell part by part. Do some research. Stu replied: Nonsense. The peer-reviewed literature calls the F1-ATP synthase the smallest electrical machine created by Nature and describes its...

Stu wrote: You are the one that is ill informed. Considering the the F-ATP synthase, Science News reported "With parts that resemble pistons and a drive shaft, the enzyme F1-ATPase looks suspiciously like a tiny engine. Indeed, a new study demonstrates that's exactly what it is." Science...

Stu wrote: This coming from a guy that thinks machines orginate via sheer dumb luck!