Creationists will just say 'god did it' if they find life off Earth. They will say that as the Bible doesn't say about creation off Earth obviously it doesn't mean that life wasn't created off Earth.
But this is standard Creationistic claptrap;
Evolutionists do not fully understand their own theory and its incredible flexibility.
As the theory is in development and subject to change as more evidence is uncovered (unlike Creationism which is static at 'god did it'), it could be said that the theory is not fully understood but this does not mean it is invalid. Some aspects of physics are not clearly understood but predictions can be made accurately based upon the understanding that we do have.
Evolutionary theory is a structureless smorgasbord.
This is a lie.
Many evolutionary illusions are created by evolutionists remaining silent on key issues.
I challange the poster to provide examples so I can show this is a lie.
Introduces a new creationist theory — Message Theory — to replace evolution.
Message theory is not a theory. I challange the poster to prove otherwise.
Introduces the argument from imperfection — Stephen Gould's "Panda Principle" — and gives the first of several key reasons to overturn it. Unordinary designs (so called "imperfect" designs) are the expected result of a designer who is sending a message. They also form a unique style, which, like handwriting, allows us to identify that life had only one author.
Explains the difference between scientific and non-scientific theories, particularly the key role of testability.
Documents that evolutionists themselves have thoroughly endorsed testability as the criterion of science in all the key creation/evolution court cases.
Interesting it does this as Creationist theory is untestable.
The book later argues that evolution is not science — using the evolutionist's own criterion of testability.
As evolution is documentable both in the past to reasonable standards of evidence and in the present according to expected observability in available time scales, this is a lie.
Some evolutionary leaders are quoted essentially admitting that. The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science, and evolution is not.
Examples please so I can show how this is a misrepresentation.
Debunks the evolutionists' attempts to define creation out of science:
Identifies cases where evolutionists use a double standard — one standard for creation theory, and a lesser one for evolution.
Give a couple of examples so I can show their vacuosity.
Shows that theories involving an intelligent designer are already accepted by evolutionists as testable science. Therefore, evolutionists cannot claim such theories are inherently unscientific.
Debunks the evolutionist's assault on the argument from design. Shows that the argument from design can be thoroughly convincing. For example, we often show that someone's death was not accidental, that it was designed — and we show it so compellingly that we execute the 'designer'.
And who designed the designer remains the flaw in both Creationism and ID as the only way they can avoid this is by special pleading.
Shows that some statements about the supernatural can be testable science.
Yes; there is no proof of the supernatural; this can be tested quite easily and proven to be true.
Shows the anthropic principle is not testable, and so not science by evolutionists' own criterion.
So funny! By definition it is untestable. It is a logical argument not a scientific theory. Doesn't mean it isn't true.
Traces the downfall of naturalistic origin-of-life theories, including the recent setbacks on the Earth's "primitive atmosphere" and "primordial soup".
Debunks the evolutionist's misuses of probability.
"Biologic universals" at the biochemical level have often been claimed as major evidence for evolution. That notion is debunked by showing that evolutionists have been forced (by the data) to reject all known biologic universals from the first conceivable life forms — biologic universals are not even remotely predicted by evolution, and make better evidence against it than for it.
This is so dishonest I encourage anyone to do a search for 'biological universals evolution' and see how this is essentially a straw man argument.
Creationism and ID only exist in oppostion to established scientific theory. They can only explain themselves in contrast to evolution as they themselves have no theory or proof. They cannot exist apart as theories as they do not have the substance of theory to exist inn their own right.
Instead of trying to prove ID or Creatonism (which cannot be done), as per normal this is a weak Creationist attack on evolution that will chiefly impress those who do not have science background and are already inclined to believe in 'designer based' belief systems, just like those who get duped by pyramid selling schemes are chiefly those who do not have financial backgrounds and who are inclined to be impressed by ideas you can get rich easy.
And as per normal is shows the remarkable lack of faith demonstrated by such literalists in their attacks on science. It is beyond the megre ability of the average Creationist or IDer that god might be clever enough to have started the whole Universe rolling and have it ended up the way it intended without having to use any act of special creation or design.
Of course, this clinging to literlism is the key reason this is such an issue. If you insist on holy-book literalism when it comes to science they holy book literalism on belief and morals is easy, and totalitarianistic belief structure become possible.
This loses sight of the possibility that 'god' may well be love, and totalitarianism and love have NOTHING to do with each other
