UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 4 to Talk Back 88
There are no examples which truly support Intelligent Design - not one.

by: JT

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This exchange of views has been continued.

Michael:

I think you have some fundamentally flawed assumptions about evolution. You provide specific examples of the blowhole on a whale and the liking of bees for nectar and suggest that these examples point to design rather than evolution. Michael - these are well documented as features developed through an evolutionary process. In the case of the whale, there are even intermediate fossils showing that as the whale's ancestors moved from land to water, the nostrils relocated over time.

You chose bad examples to support your point. And unfortunately for those that argue for design, every example they choose suffers from the same problem - evolution explains it without any need for a designer to meddle in the process. There are no examples which truly support design - not one.

You regard evolution as random chaos. While there is a significant element of randomness in the minor mutations which give rise to evolution, selection is by survival long enough to reproduce. Given that the randomness is filtered by the requirement to survive, it is not a chaotic process but a process that is strongly directed towards continual improvement in the ability to survive under current conditions.

It remains beyond me why those that argue for the Great Designer are incapable of comprehending a designer who engineered a universe that would incorporate an evolutionary process. By claiming that your deity personally designed every living creature, you diminish him. You are saying he was not capable of designing a better process.

You say "I tell my students that you can be logically right and still be wrong." Correct - when the assumptions on which the logical argument is based are in error, then the logically correct conclusion may be in error. But if you start with valid assumptions, then the logically correct conclusion will also be valid.

You are starting with invalid assumptions about evolution. Those assumptions have led you into error.