Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rsl12
You quoted the wrong part of my message Raveneye. ID and evolution are in direct opposition to each other.
ID states that biological organsims are too complicated and functional to have arisen solely due to the simple laws of physics/chemistry and random chance.
Evolution states that, over time, biological organisms become increasingly complex and functional due to the simple laws of physics/chemistry and random chance.
You can't have it both ways.
Also: there are certainly ways to prove ID, as described in my previous post.
|
-- what is not in direct oppositon are the propositions that (1) ID exists and (2) evolution exists, even for any particular biological structure. That's what I was referring to.
-- your propositions above are specific arguments. These specific arguments are in opposition.
-- I don't see anywhere in your post above (which is somewhat confusing to me) where you show how ID is "proven". Are you saying that you can prove ID by showing that no natural agency or combination of agencies whatsoever is capable of producing a particular biological structure in question? How is is possible to do that without complete understanding of every natural agency and every combination of natural agencies and of starting conditions that ever existed anywhere on earth at any time?
-- it is easy to show that natural processes can produce complex biological structures and this has been done admirably for many structures, starting with Darwin. E.g. genomes, proteins, nucleic acids, viruses, organelles, the vertebrate eye. This however has done nothing to silence ID proponents, because of what I was referring to before: ID is not science and there are always ways to continue believing in ID regardless of the outcome of scientific research.