Stress can have a big effect on fertility….

Free advice on How to Fix Scratched Window Glass….

Einige sind der Ansicht, dass es sich mit dem Thema zu beschaeftigen wenig lohnt, da der Informationsmarkt hierueber bereits recht ueberlaufen sei, Es laesst sich wahrlich nur recht selten auf etwas wirklich Gutes dabei zu treffen. Trotzdem kann sich d…

Check this law site http://www.mlaw.ws…

I found your blog on Tuesday through Google while searching for mens stretch jean and your post regarding Creationism versus Artificial Intelligence | PC Pro blog made me leave this comment. I always enjoy coming to this site because you offer great ti…

[...] Good piano performance. Thanks heaps for this!… if anyone else has anything it would be much appreciated. Great website http://www.en.Grand-Pianos.org Enjoy!…

I never thought I will agree with this opinion, but you know… I agree partially now…

Why can’t scientists keep a straight face in this case? If an adaptation is advantageous (e.g eyes, ears, flight) we are likely to see it appear independently many times. In the case of the eye, we have seen multiple independent instances of it evolving. It is not very hard to see the advantage of half a wing or half an eye. An underdeveloped wing could still slow the fall from great heights to prevent injury. We also see partially developed wingoids in flying squirrels and other gliding animals.

Logically how do you go from co-evolution to a complex creator? This is where your thinking goes wrong. You assert the existence of a creator, and proceed to skip every other probable explanation. The weight of evidence is not met when it comes to the extraordinary claim of a creator.

After all of the modern discoveries in science, the teleological argument doesn’t really work. We have discovered the best explanation for life and the cosmos without the assumption or need of a creator. The creator has been pushed back to the potentially unfalsifiable prime mover. Why lay the baggage that comes with a god onto that explanation; we haven’t even extensively explored the possibility of an energy fluctuation initiating the expansion of the universe.

It seems that the ID arguments have to try to explain away some of our best science to remain relevant. The proponents have to cover their ears and say “la-la-la-la” when a new transitional fossil is found, or more evidence is found to increase our understand of the nature of the cosmos.

Currently the ID movement fits in the unknown or little known parts of scientific understanding. The god of the gaps strategy will only fool the most credulous believer. Scientists love mystery because it gives them something to do. The unknown becomes known as we research and find probable explanations. When the gaps are filled, creationism will fall into other areas. Recently, as was mentioned before, Behe tried to exploit the biochemical gaps in the evolutionary explanation; but when those were researched, it was found to have a perfectly good explanation within evolutionary theory. As the pattern goes, proponents of Behe’s assertions will deny the facts because of the implications on their beliefs.

Looking at science through god colored glasses will only lead to fallible conclusions. Looking at evolution with the assumption of the existence of a creator will only lead you to believe that a complex creator started all of this. Even the believing scientist knows that this is an unnecessary assumption, but their religious faith partitioned mind allows this fallacy to persist. Try to look at science as if religion never existed. Can you find a reason(based on the facts) that you would come to the conclusion that an all powerful, complex, omnipresent god created everything? Doing so would strip the assumption of a creator, and allow you to see science without this bias. The assumption that the world has no creator is neutral, not a positive assertion.

Before you post any other silly straw man arguments and misconceptions, please read the counter-creationism handbook. It dissects 400 common creationist misconceptions, and shows the actual current scientific consensus about the topics.