Quote:
|
Originally Posted by twistedmosaic
From a strictly agnostic point of view, I still can't fully grok counterpoints to irreducible complexity, and also a lack of reproducable abiogenesis. But this is probably my own fault for not educating myself about these areas rather than a lack in the field.
|
Interestingly enough, even if there were no explanation for either "irriducible complexity" or abiogenesis, that still wouldn't counter either evolution or common ancestry. This might be hard for you to see, especially if you have an "evangelical backdrop" with which to contend...
Biological origins is a very difficult problem to solve and we haven't been working on it for very long. They have some compelling evidence of plausibility but no comprehensive theory or demonstration. However, this is entirely irrelevant. Evolution is about how life forms change over time and has nothing to do with biological origins. As such, this is a
non sequitur and has no bearing on whether evolution happened; it did...
Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance. Despite
Dr. Michael Behe's protestations to the contrary (by the way, he accepts evolution as fact), there are no clear examples of irreducible complexity. That a theory cannot explain everything we'd like to know doesn't make a theory false. For instance, gravitational theory doesn't explain exactly how each of the planets formed. Does that mean gravity is not true? Does it even make sense to be agnostic about gravity?
Furthermore, Irreducible Complexity doesn't even falsify evolution, as can be evidenced by the theory's creator's own confession (Dr. Behe) that evolution is a biological fact. It would simply change the mechanism from strictly random mutation and natural selection to mostly mutation and selection with the help of a couple miracles. Common ancestry is still true...