tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post8466696185337008423..comments2023-10-05T00:44:33.255+08:00Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: Re: ID vs Darwinism on random mutation & natural selectionStephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-61908107013888454672011-02-03T21:20:38.878+08:002011-02-03T21:20:38.878+08:00Anonymous
>I believe that some very good scien...Anonymous<br /><br />>I believe that some very good science can be found in Stephen Meyers book "Signature in the Cell". <br /><br />A belated thanks for your comment. As I explained in my latest post, <a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2011/02/my-theory-of-progressive-mediate.html" rel="nofollow">My Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation: Index</a>, I did not know what to reply, and that your comment and another's, prompted me to restart posting on Creation/Evolution/Design issues, but only on my Progressive Mediate Creation Theory.<br /><br />I am one of those who bought Myer's book, who started reading it and has not finished it, but who thoroughly agrees with it.<br /><br />My problem, as I explained in the above post, is that I had become bored with Creation/Evolution/Design.<br /><br />One of the reasons for that loss of interest is that since discovering the evidence for <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin</a> is <i>overwhelming</i> that it is the very burial sheet of Jesus, I am now even more convinced by the evidence that Christianity is objectively true (i.e. true whether it is believed or not), and therefore Naturalistic Evolution is false.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-66426041385297652842011-01-10T05:52:20.774+08:002011-01-10T05:52:20.774+08:00I believe that some very good science can be found...I believe that some very good science can be found in Stephen Meyers book "Signature in the Cell". The data leads Meyers to conclude that there must be an intelligent designer. Why do those of the Darwinian atheist ilk dismiss the science in Stephen Meyers book even though most readily admit to not having read a single word of the book? They proclaim that it's unnecessary to read the book because it simply cannot be science. Just because some may conclude the data points to a designer isn't a good enough excuse to dismiss the science. Some non-ID scientists have declared that the science is legit and, as true, open-minded scientists believe the data merits further study. Meyers has challenged Richard Hawkins to a debate which has been declined. Hawkins says he won't debate a creationist. You would think that Hawkins would consider himself an expert on the topic due to his best seller "The God Delusion" Most people who consider themselves experts on a particular subject would confidently accept challenges to debate against a worthy opponent. Hawkins book attempts to dismiss any possibility of the existence of God. He would have to expect anyone who challenges him to a debate would be in disagreement with his conclusions. Hawkins has only debated professors of religion studies, TV hosts, documentary makers, etc. He has yet to take on another intelligent person who specializes in science. What is Richard Hawkins really afraid of? *I'm not sure if it's Dawkins or HawkinsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-59974568346830116972008-04-30T12:19:00.000+08:002008-04-30T12:19:00.000+08:00I think one of the problems with the way evolution...I think one of the problems with the way evolution is taught in public school classrooms is that it is taught not just as a possible explanation, but as fact, as truth, as something that definitely happened. That should require proof. But science cannot prove evolution because to prove which of two alternative explanations happened you have to examine and evaluate both.<BR/><BR/>If science wants to prove that evolution happened, it has to do more than attempt to prove that evolution is possible. It needs to rule out creation. If both creation and evolution can explain the evidence, then either is possible and neither can be proved.<BR/><BR/>But science cannot disprove creation because it cannot examine creation as an explanation using the scientific method. The scientific method does not allow consideration of supernatural causes. This puts creation outside the domain of science as it presently operates.<BR/><BR/>This means science cannot examine both sides of the issue, which is required for proof. It can only examine a materialistic explanation.<BR/><BR/>And therefore it cannot prove that evolution occurred and therefore should not teach it as fact or truth in public school classrooms contrary to the religious beliefs of the students and their families.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com