Joined: Dec. 2005
First of all, thanks for creating this great site (along with talkorigins.org) and the lively discussions on the main board and in the forum.
I am not a professional scientist, just an amateur who grew up immersed in creationist environments but found them hollow while becoming an evolutionist via the Wallacean route (i.e. biodiversity and biogeographical studies of the Malesian region – I keep freshwater fishes and plants from this part of the world and keep track of the region's habitats, species distribution and ecological issues on my blog at: http://budak.blogs.com/the_ann.....html).
Recently, in Singapore (which most of you probably know through draconian social laws coupled with official enthusiasm about the life sciences), a letter to the leading newspaper sparked a short debate which continued online on my blog and another individual. The main links are here:
The creationist in question hasn't made up his mind on whether he is old or young earth, but his main lines of assault are via the supposed improbability of abiogenesis as well as the supposed conclusion of forensic science that an intelligence (he disingenously separates the notion of non-human intelligence and supernatural causes to avoid the theistic accusation) can be detected in the functional complexity of life (using examples from cellular chemistry and DNA origins). His definition of science is akin to Philip Johnson's.
With no real training in biochemistry, I can only address the logical, philosophical and deductional aspects of his arguments, which seem to me extended expositions based on incredulity, ignorance and outright hostility to materialistic science. My request here, if you could spare some time, is that you could assess the points (from both sides) and provide us some feedback and leads on their soundness. I am not intending to have the last word on the matter, as the good doctor has already proclaimed 'victory'. Neither do I seek to convert him. A clear, objective evaluation of the issues raised for the benefit of genuinely disinterested individuals reading the discussion is what I am for.
Thanks and regards,