Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (738)	3/2/2002 8:29:09 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

It's so simple it's tautological. It does sound simple the way you describe it. But I keep thinking, why did it all happen this way? Why did we happen to get such an efficient reproductive design? (strike that word). We could have been given (strike that), ended up with, an asexual reproductive mode, and then all those defective genes wouldn't be eliminated. Why do all living things evolve toward greater complexity, rather than lesser? It almost seems like there was a purpose (strike that). I can't help but think of it as a miracle (strike that), as one hell of a lucky roll of the cosmic dice. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Unlike creation science, intelligent design theory does not require the vast majority of the scientific community to be in error. Intelligent design theory is consistent with all scientific experiments. The old age of the earth and the universe is not challenged. Einstein's theory of relativity is correct. Radioactive dating works. Physicists, chemists and astronomers are correct. Common ancestry is not challenged. Evidence for descent with modification is not challenged. The fossils indicate a continual and gradual increase in complexity. The power of natural selection to bring about diversity is accepted. No issue is taken with the vast majority of the conclusions drawn by biologists, biochemists, microbiologists and other researchers in related fields. That is intelligent design leaves most of evolution theory intact. Intelligent design theory does challenge the conclusion drawn by a few scientists like Dawkins who claim that naturalistic processes fully explain the origin and complexity of life; and as a result, there is no need for a designer. Dawkins finds no evidence for design, because he has never looked for it. Scientists who look, generally find that design is the best and most logical explanation for life's complexity. Examples include but are by no means limited to the following authors: Yockey in Information Theory and Molecular Biology, 1992 Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen in The Mystery of Life's Origin. Behe in Darwin's Black Box, 1996 Denton in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986 Spetner in Not by Chance, 1998 Dembski in The Design Inference, 1998 Overman in A Case Against Accident and Self Organization, 1997 Pullen in The Theory of Evolution, The Origin of Life and Intelligent Design ( not yet published, 2000) theory-of-evolution.org