charlie wagner
Posts: 24 Joined: Aug. 2008
|
Quote | 1) The succession of changes, over billions of years, of the physical and ecological environments to which living organisms have displayed adaptation during the history of life would itself have been inherently unpredictable. This is due to the uniqueness and complexity of the causal factors, the huge time scales, the non-linear unpredictability of many of the processes, the vast number of parallel ecological niches, and the fact that living organisms themselves shape or even become the environments to which other organisms adapt.
|
Absolutely true...
Quote | 2) The huge variety and inherent unpredictability of these successive changes render impossible the pre-programming or front loading of biological adaptations, because such pre-programming would require either foreknowledge of inherently unknowable future events, or control over those events that is nowhere in evidence. |
That is an assumption that you're making based upon your personal incredulity. Pre-programming would not require a knowledge of future events. Which makes biochemical machines much more advanced. The fact that living organisms are beyond the ability of the human mind to design and construct them seems to be powerful evidence for the existence of a higher intelligence. The protein synthetic apparatus cannot only replicate itself, but it can also construct any other biochemical machine if it's given the proper instructions in the form of genetic code and the basic functional units to work with. Since proteins can be put to almost unlimited uses, this makes the cell somewhat akin to a universal automaton with almost limitless potential. That's probably the reason why life is so ubiquitous on the earth and probably elsewhere in the universe. The unlimited potential of the protein synthetic apparatus to dynamically respond to almost any conditions.*
*Many people who proclaim intelligent design are really stealth creationists. I'm not so naive that I've missed that. They are using this as a way to get religion into the public schools, despite the fact that it is specifically forbidden by the constitution. Unfortunately, this has given the concept of intelligent design a bad name. Do not confuse me with these people. I have no religious agenda and I am adamantly opposed to teaching creationism in the public schools. I am also adamantly against spending one cent of my tax dollars to support religious schools in any way. I am opposed to paying for transportation to religious schools, I'm opposed to spending taxpayer dollars on textbooks for religious schools and I am adamantly opposed to prayer in any form in the public schools. The fact is, I'm a fairly uncommon species of ID'er, being as I have been an atheist for most of my life and I am now an agnostic. I see no evidence for a benevolent and all-powerful god and frankly, any mention of religion or god often produces an advanced dyspepsia. If you want to know more about me, you can check out my website below. Anyway, I also consider darwinian evolution to be probably the biggest hoax in the last millenium. How it got as far as it has with absolutely no observational and experimental evidence to support it boggles my mind. Think about it for a moment. You've been had. The evidence that is claimed is just not there. Take a look. Don't believe me, if you don't want to. It's a story that people made up, and it sounds good and it took hold of people's imaginations. It then grew over time as it was promoted as the TRUTH by generations of evolutionists and taught in institutions of higher learning by renowned professors. Part of it's strength comes from a fear of creationism. This battle between religion and science has been waged for centuries. This is just one more battle in that war. Both science and religion claim to have truth on their side. The only problem with evolution is the facts were NOT there and science got caught with it's metaphorical pants down around it's knees. Creationists arguments against darwinism are mostly right on the mark. Instead of fessin' up, science has chosen to wage a rhetorical war with creationists. This war will be lost, because the theory is so defective that even a layperson can see through it. If we want to save science, we have to stop promoting an obsolete, useless theory and get busy doing what we should be able to do best, find the truth. And if the truth is unattainable because we have no way of determining it by observation or experiment, we should retreat from the battlefield, admit that we don't know and probably never will and get on with the true business of science. And leave the rhetoric and hyperbole to the philosophers and pundits.
|