Bermuda, no offense, but I don't think shows on PBS and KCSM about scientific theory are funded by Christian groups. I also don't think the multiple books and scientific journals about the subject are the work of Christian advocates.
I'm not saying that intelligent beings created us, it is a possibility, I am just saying we were PROBABLY (as of now, it looks this way to me) designed.
The one-celled organism of Earth could not have possibly "happened" on accident. To give an amazingly simple analogy.. If you have a near infinite amount of scrabble tiles, no matter how many times you drop them, you probably are not going to get Hamlet's soliloquoy. If you were able to do that, that freak accident would be nothing compared to random chemicals randomly forming the incredibly complex code of life, aka DNA, and the one-celled organisms with all its molecular machines, etc, etc..
I don't see why you people are making it out to be some Christian conspiracy to prove the existence of God.
I realize some people have used this new movement to justify their religious beliefs, but believe me, I am no Christian. I think that the intelligent design theory is the most logical explanation, as of now, for the BEGINNINGS of life. I still "believe" in evolution, I accept it as pretty much fact.
Loki, I don't know one scientist that knows how life started or has any idea how life started. I don't know any scientist who would accept the random chemical formation theory or the natural selection of lifeless chemical theory.
Most scientists probably reject all theories explaining life, and with good reason, none of them are even close to explaining it or sound enough to be accepted/rejected.
Quote:
http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/3116-1.html
We now have a reliable scientific method, formalized by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski (in The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, 1998), for detecting designed objects and distinguishing them from the products of chance and impersonal laws. Scientists already use the design inference intuitively in fields such as cryptography, archaeology and forensics. When applied to nature's fine-tuned laws, DNA sequences and Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems, the clear conclusion is that they are intelligently designed.
Not surprisingly, these matters are provoking fierce debate. Many guardians of current scientific orthodoxy are casting aspersions to prevent these new insights from gaining a hearing, and even threatening the freedom of scientists to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Their furor is understandable, for they realize that intelligent design in the natural sciences, like scientific materialism, would have profound social consequences. No longer would science seem to underwrite a materialistic world view, in which human beings are neither accountable nor responsible.
What Darwinism and scientific materialism have dismantled, intelligent design theory could help restore.
|
Quote:
|
One example of such a complex system is bacteria flagellum, a microscopic motor-like force that gives bacteria the ability to move from place to place, spinning at about 15,000 revolutions per minutes. It's such an efficient motor that some engineers are trying to copy its design for industrial applications, according to Roger Christianson, head of Southern Oregon University's biology department. "It's a pretty elaborate device, especially for bacteria, which have a fairly simple kind of cell construction," said Christianson, explaining the complexity of bacterial flagella. He is not a design theorist. "You look at something like this and say, 'Where did it come from? There is really no fossil record showing the fine structure of ancient bacterial flagella. On one side you've got people who say, 'It evolved over time; we just don't know the process.' On the other side you've got people who say, 'It's so complex, it's impossible to imagine how it could have evolved, therefore that's evidence for design.' "
|
I don't strongly believe in either intelligent design or random unknown Darwinist theory. I do think that intelligent design is much more interesting, and I didn't want to really defend myself, I wanted to talk about it because of the philisophical implications and because it is so interesting. There is barely any evidence for both sides, one just seems a little more interesting than the other and right now, a little more logical.
Here is a pretty cool image, although I don't really think the "god" parts are neccessary or have any real bearing on the scientific theory behind these "paths"
