Darwin claims we have no design or purpose to our lives. Well our cells do so I guess he was wrong on that one as well.
Take a look at this great video explaining "irreducible complexity".
Professor Behe states:We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified.
4 comments:
bad science? the only bad science here is the stuff you are posting that support ID. that cells are irreducily complex has be debunked time and time again with REAL science that explains how every one of these parts has evolved. only a scientist refusing to look deep enough or unable to understand the complexity of evolution beleives in THIS sort of nonsense. keep trying tho. it is amusing to see your bad scientists try to make things up to support your simple and naive ideas.
lookatrealscience---i'll have to take your word for it that real science has explained how every one of the parts of a cell has evolved.i would question though the credit going to looking deep enough.evolution indicates a starting point from which to evolve.forgive my simplicity and naivety but i don't believe its deep enough until you can show me how it all began without the neccesity for faith.
whats more important then how things began is how they will end,we as human beings had no input into our beginning. with a rational mind as you obviously have though and others have could it be possible that we we might play a determning role in our ending.
that cells are irreducily complex has be debunked time and time again
=No it hasn't
Ken Millers bogus presentation hasn't been proven or tested.
Behe didn't have credibility not because what he said was false. It is true, The bacteria doesn't function the way it is supposed to function.
The reason the court didn't give him credibiity is because he had no "peer review status"
The peers are all evolutionist, who are biased and don't give credibility unless it agrees with their "assumptions and speculation"
Where did the first cell come from. Where did the first energy and matter come from.?.
Let's look at the claims made in the video.
01. Cells are more complex than what scientists thought at the time of Darwin's book. Therefore Darwin was wrong.
We know much more about the entire universe then we did 2,000 years ago. Therefore, using this same argument, I can claim that the Bible must be wrong.
Also, Darwin did not know exactly how these changes occurred. However, DNA provided the mechanism to cause random mutations and duplications. If anything, our knowledge about the cell has strengthened Darwin's theory.
02. Behe claims the bacterial flagellum is to complex to have evolved through natural selection.
Behe takes simply says "God did it" and doesn't look any further. Yet other scientists, who do not share his view, did look further and found sub-assemblies of the flagellum that were actually functional on their own.
This is detailed here.
Post a Comment