Science, Creation & EvolutionCreation vs. Evolution, general discussionQuite correct, the fact they use pseudoscience in their ID theories make those theories suspect. Behe is a chemist, his chemistry work that gets published may be excellent, but his ID IC nonsense is just that, pseudoscientific nonsense. Nice strawman, though. That's not answering the question. What would stop such "simple variation" from accumulating? That's because E Coli was the common ancestor of all known variants of e coli today, your argument is a classic bait and switch, E Coli today are not the same as E Coli in the past, and that's the point. Your argument is tantamount to saying that Eukaryotes have remained Eukaryotes for billions of years, therefore where's this "large scale evolution" when you've not defined how much variation is contained in the kingdom of Eukaryotes, and you've not defined how much hereditary variation you would count to be enough variation to be "true" evolution. No doubt, if you were pressed for such information, you'd ask for the kind of variation only possible over non-directly viewable timescales and dismiss the genome of current organisms, complete with endogenous retrovirus insertions as not enough proof. That's because all E Coli organisms are defined by the ancestor we have in living memory! The distictions you want are unfortunately arbitrary, due to common descent. That's why we go for reproductive seperateness as the species level. This unity and simultaneous diversity is what common descent and evolution are all about, and actually show how the process works and WHY we can plot common ancestry. Imagine the E coli strains had one thing in common with a previous type of organism, as did another type of organisms, we'll call them D Coli for sake of argument, and we'll call the earlier organism C. Coli. Are E coli and D Coli just variants of C Coli? Yes! Are they seperate organisms also? Yes! So, would you count genetic reliance on a substance which does not naturally exist, formed in living memory, proof of evolution? Or would this simply be "variation" which, for reasons unspecified (your incredulity) cannot create variation enough to make what we see today? ID is not a theory since it offers no predictions, nor does it give a means of intelligently designing anything, since it knows no evidence will be found. It's a pure cart before the horse fallacy. This horse was intelligently designed to pull this cart. You do realise IDeists accept common descent and evolution, right? They just argue from incredulity and don't posit any means of intelligent design for whatever chemical composition they can't understand this week. It's just Paley's Watch applied to the chemical scale now, since evolution explains biodiversity. They can't seem to understand the difference between artificial compositions and naturally occurring ones, and then don't offer a means of how it got there, other than their ignorance renamed "the ID". The fact creationists of all colours can't actually offer something up that explains everything as well as evolution does is quite telling. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame