hooberus,
If persons are really interested in the coherent scientific message that creationists have to tell the world then I recommend the following publications:
from the first link:
http://www1.minn.net/~science/about.htm
Half the book dismantles evolutionary illusions, such as:
The other half of the book is more controversial. The book doesn't just take shots at evolution, it actively proposes a scientifically testable creation theory to take its place. The new theory overturns Darwin's and Gould's arguments about "imperfect" designs, and most notably, the evolutionist's central argument ? the nested pattern of life.
Looks like half of the time is spent on dismantling evolution. And the other half is about things such as "overturning evolutionist's central argument". Still largely about dismantling evolution. Here is what seems to be different to me:
The central claims of the theory are simple and plausible: Life was reasonably designed for survival, and to convey a message that tells where life came from. The message can be described in two parts:
- Life was designed to look like the product of a single designer.
- Life was designed to resist all other explanations.
In other words, evolutionary theory helped shape the pattern of life ? with a reverse impact. Life was intricately designed to resist all evolutionary explanations, not just Darwin's or Lamarck's.
This looks like a bit of a joke, although it may just be the wording of the review that makes it look like it. Does it mean God/Creator took great care to disprove Darwin and Lamarck? Does that mean all evolutionists are utterly dishonest? Does that mean God predicted "apostasy" from when he started making the first virus? (BTW, I wonder what "biotic message" viruses were supposed to convey). Is there no easier way to resist all evolutionary explanations (or rather their philosophical implications)?
Anyway, I'll be happy to comment on one of your installements when you are finished with refuting evolution and start conveying "the biotic message". Shall we start with:
"What is the real biotic message of the Ebola virus?"
Metaphysics confused with physics again.
Q,
(and many on this board seem to suggest quite strongly that evolution points clearly to NO intelligent design when it says nothing of the sort - it explains mechanistic processes
I don't think that is the case. I don't waste my time proving beyond doubt that there is no Higher Intelligence just because evolution seems largely plausible. There is no scientific theology of evolution. The problem is that there seems to be no science of creation.
Scientific thought does best when it can freely look at all scenarios and stop sorting them by dogma - creationism does not require the God of any particular religion (that part can be kept for RE and Church) but it can recognise the existence of intellignece other than our own.
I guess some people have problems with partly agreeing with a person who seems to be plain wrong. Do you recognise the existence of intelligence other than our own by refuting bits and pieces of evolution?
Or can anybody please explain the biotic message of the mosquito?
Pole of the "having a hard time with gnats" class