Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WillyPete
So when human geneticists step in and change the genetic makeup of a plant for whatever reason, do we label it as a 'creation' or an 'evolution'?
|
We label it evolution because the scientists are just artificially selecting what mutations will be passed on. They aren't pointing at a cellular structure, waving a magic wand and saying 'ah-ha, now it's irreducibly complex'!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WillyPete
If it's so easy for a human, and we haven't disproven the existence of an intelligent superior being or alien race intervening in a similar fashion does that not open the possibility for it to have occurred?
|
Where are you getting this notion for it being easy??
Also, technically ID isn't falsifiable-so disproof is a moot point. You should realize this though, after all, every line of evidence that we could present for ID's falsifiability could be explained by 'the intelligent designer planned it that way' or some such nonsense.
What I can show you is some incidents of horrible design in the animal world, would that convince you?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WillyPete
By Creationism though, I assume you mean the world being created in 7 days and not an active involvement by an intelligent being that sets off or seeds the planet with its diversity of life. Right?
|
Either one, really, as neither are science and both are trying to get pseudoscience in the classroom.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WillyPete
In that regard I am going to vote against it because of the inaccuracies and lack of understanding of those involved in the generation of the record. ('record' = Genesis or other creation myths)
|
How about the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 give two completely different creation stories?
