Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

youre quite right, "evolution" is silent on that .
So it could still be 100% right and avoid all discussions of the origin of life.

That's why I'm always gobsmacked that science vs religion discussions always hinge on Evolution. After first life, the rest is easy. But we're not there yet.

Intellectual atheists always seem to assert that evolution proves there is no God. WTF, they can't seem to grasp that it's impossible to prove that negative. Nor can they seem to separate religion from God.

Easy for you to say.






.

no, the process of evolution ASSUMES there is no god. Theres a bit of a difference

I'm sure we've beaten abiogenesis to death somewhere in these thousand pages as well, but like you, I don't have the time to go back and find it either.

Microbes are already very biologically complex and Biological evolution certainly does explain those. But I'm going to assume you were using the term "microbe" in a general way to describe the very first biologically replicative molecule, which is essentially the beginning of biological chemistry.

The challenge for abiogenesis is to describe the mechanism by which simple chemical reactions transitioned into replicative biological chemistry, and that hasn't been done with any high degree of certainty yet. But if our understanding of the natural world and of biological evolution has taught us anything it's that purely natural processes can produce spectacularly complex things (including us). Of this there is no doubt. So it isn't really a big leap to assume that natural chemical processes could also result in a transition to replicative chemistry and eventually biology.

You stepped pretty lightly over abiogenesis there. My point was that yes, microbes ARE very complex and evolution does not explain where the first one came from. Nor does any naturally occurring chemical reaction lead to the highly ordered and lengthy DNA instructions required of even the simplest self reproducing organism. Not to mention the complex molecular machinery needed to execute that program.

I fear This will inevitably lead to a discussion of cellular biology butim OK with that.

Really? what does give us cancer? Tell me more.

Pick a science. Any science. Find its current frontier. It's got one. All of them do. So what?

As others have said, the best lies always include a little bit of truth.

ID is just creationism with some words swapped out for scientific ones. But it's still creationism.

So you're falling back on the old 'science WILL find the answer eventually' argument? That is a religious belief in disguise.

So if you can't win the argument with science, just call your opponent a religious wacko and go home.

Great tactic...

Pro tip: Avoid making strawmen fallacies. My point was to ask what your point is/was. Every science has a frontier. It's been that way since Aristotle. What are you trying to say by pointing out the current frontiers?

Maybe the universe (and your 100+ pounds of hamburger meat) is for temporary use only.

Where is my straw man?

Maybe I missed your point too but my point was that the more science learns about biology, the harder abiogenesis is to explain. Same is true in cosmology.

You seem to think that I have some sort of religious conviction about science. You seem to have an axe to grind that is affecting your reasoning. Consider:

Every year since records started being kept, hurricanes have developed in the Atlantic.

Prediction: Next year, hurricanes will almost certainly develop in the Atlantic, barring some unforeseen and catastrophic change in conditions. Nothing religious in that prediction.

Compare:

History tells us that the rate/frequency of scientific breakthroughs has been increasing in pace with technological advancements for as long as history records.

Prediction: Science and technology will almost certainly continue this trend, barring some unforeseen and catastrophic change in conditions. Nothing religious in that prediction.

One of the most exciting things about science is that it's always uncovering new and better questions in the effort to answer the current ones. I'd rather have questions that can't (yet) be answered than answers that can't ever be questioned.

My readings in both biology and cosmology over the decades suggest significant advances in our understanding of how things work, how they got to be the way they are now. If you have a reason as to why that trend might come to an end, I'd like to hear it.

TO LEADFOOT I think you should read a bit deeper. What gives biochemists and biologists a bit of adjida is "By which pathway do we think life really began on this planet?"

By applying the rudiments of a "falsification analyses", FBM has turnd your entire point upside down.

By calling it religion, youve failed to understand concepts like testability and falsification.

FBM wrote:
"Prediction: Science and technology will almost certainly continue this trend, barring some unforeseen and catastrophic change in conditions. Nothing religious in that prediction.

One of the most exciting things about science is that it's always uncovering new and better questions in the effort to answer the current ones. I'd rather have questions that can't (yet) be answered than answers that can't ever be questioned."

--------------------

I noticed you didn't address my point. Again.

I have nothing against science. I earn my living in science. It just looked like you were implying that science WILL eventually have the definitive answer about abiogenesis. That to me is a religious belief when you assume you already know the answer. If that was not your implication, my apologies.

And speaking of straw men, what answers have I raised that can't be questioned?

I didn't call science a religion. But the attitude that science WILL find the path to abiogenesis is a religious attitude. It assumes the outcome of testability. That is not science.

None here can.

Another thing I have mentioned often is...even if every facet of the evolution theory is spot on...

...that says nothing about whether or not there is a GOD...

...nor whether the "evolution" is or is not the result of the actions of a GOD.

IF there is the possibility of a GOD...

...then there is the possibility of intelligent design.

I grant that if there is "intelligent design" under those circumstances...then it has progressed along the path science is showing exists.

Mind you...I did not say a GOD EXISTS...or even...IF A GOD EXISTS.

All I have said is: If there is the possibility of a GOD...

...then there is the possibility of intelligent design.

(Not that preposterous nonsense from the Bible...but there is the possibility of intelligent design.)