Why I Don't Believe In Evolution

[apothanein kerdos]

The gaps are there not "because of" the naturalistic explanations, but because there's simply not enough information to draw a conclusion. To say that we don't know how species A might have evolved is not the same as conceding it could not have or did not evolve. We weigh the lack of evidence against the evidence we do have, and decide which tips the balance. Assigning any explanation (IE, ID) where the evidence is lacking is irresponsible from a scientific standpoint.

No, it's because the naturalistic explanation CAN'T explain it. Naturalism relies on things to be simple at their most basic level - irreducible complexity shows things to be complex. These are mutually exclusive ideas, ergo, when naturalism sees this problem, it simply says, "Well it just evolved" and proceeds to offer no reason as to how.

[hatsoff]

No, it's because the naturalistic explanation CAN'T explain it. Naturalism relies on things to be simple at their most basic level - irreducible complexity shows things to be complex. These are mutually exclusive ideas, ergo, when naturalism sees this problem, it simply says, "Well it just evolved" and proceeds to offer no reason as to how.

Naturalism does not "rely on things to be simple." Where did you get that idea?

[apothanein kerdos]

No, it's because the naturalistic explanation CAN'T explain it. Naturalism relies on things to be simple at their most basic level - irreducible complexity shows things to be complex. These are mutually exclusive ideas, ergo, when naturalism sees this problem, it simply says, "Well it just evolved" and proceeds to offer no reason as to how.

Naturalism does not "rely on things to be simple." Where did you get that idea?

From some guy named Darwin...have you heard of him? Likewise, that has been the entire point of naturalism since the adoption of evolution. This is why people such as Gould, Dawkins, Sagan, etc all said/say that things had the appearance of design, but at some point we'd discover a simplicity. You can't find one naturalistic philosopher (modern) that says life doesn't have to be simple at it's most basic level. The reason is that complexity cannot simply evolve out of nothing...it has to be a process.

[Kabowd]

No, it's because the naturalistic explanation CAN'T explain it. Naturalism relies on things to be simple at their most basic level - irreducible complexity shows things to be complex. These are mutually exclusive ideas, ergo, when naturalism sees this problem, it simply says, "Well it just evolved" and proceeds to offer no reason as to how.

Naturalism does not "rely on things to be simple." Where did you get that idea?

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." ~ Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (page 54, i think)

[hatsoff]

You said that, according to naturalism, "things" must "be simple at their most basic level." I took that to mean that all things, not just the common ancestor of life on earth. Now that I see what you mean, the problem becomes that, contrary to your claims, IC does not show that the first life on earth was complex. There are only a handful of scientists who subscribe to ID or IC, and they are *every last one of them* Christians. That sounds like bias to me.

Edited February 14, 2007 by hatsoff

[hatsoff]

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." ~ Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (page 54, i think)

Notice that he didn't say, "If it can't be demonstrated how any complex organ might have been formed by numerous, successive..."

Besides, it is possible for Darwin to be wrong--and I'm sure he was mistaken about many things. Evolution, contrary to the belief of many, is not a religion. There is no doctrine of inerrancy for Origin of Species.

Edited February 14, 2007 by hatsoff

[apothanein kerdos]

You said that, according to naturalism, "things" must "be simple at their most basic level." I took that to mean that all things, not just the common ancestor of life on earth. Now that I see what you mean, the problem becomes that, contrary to your claims, IC does not show that the first life on earth was complex. There are only a handful of scientists who subscribe to ID or IC, and they are *every last one of them* Christians. That sounds like bias to me.

Mate, you haven't even studied this issue, and I can tell when you said every last one of them are Christians. Many are Muslims, Agnostics, Deists, simply Theists (such as Antony Flew), Hindu, etc.

Regardless, you're merely proving my point. "Oh, most people don't buy into complexity at the most basic level." Why do they believe this? The reason is they have taken a massive leap of faith without any evidence of life being simple at its most basic level. What we are able to observe is that, once life reaches its basic level in the modern age, it is utterly complex, and that it could not have begun to operate in this manner UNLESS all components were available and in position to work. Thus, scientists deny this because it contradicts their world view, not because the evidence is against it.

[apothanein kerdos]

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." ~ Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (page 54, i think)

Notice that he didn't say, "If it can't be demonstrated how any complex organ might have been formed by numerous, successive..."

Besides, it is possible for Darwin to be wrong--and I'm sure he was mistaken about many things. Evolution, contrary to the belief of many, is not a religion. There is no doctrine of inerrancy for Origin of Species.

Not on this issue - if life is complex as its most basic level, then naturalistic evolution fails as a plausible theory.

[hatsoff]

Mate, you haven't even studied this issue, and I can tell when you said every last one of them are Christians. Many are Muslims, Agnostics, Deists, simply Theists (such as Antony Flew), Hindu, etc.

I meant someone in the field of evolutionary biology. Besides, I can't find any quotation by Antony Flew where he subscribes to ID, despite one website claiming, "He is now a Deist due to Intelligent Design arguments."

[apothanein kerdos]

Mate, you haven't even studied this issue, and I can tell when you said every last one of them are Christians. Many are Muslims, Agnostics, Deists, simply Theists (such as Antony Flew), Hindu, etc.

I meant someone in the field of evolutionary biology. Besides, I can't find any quotation by Antony Flew where he subscribes to ID, despite one website claiming, "He is now a Deist due to Intelligent Design arguments."

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Many of the ID proponents in evolutionary biology are Musilms, Agnostics, Deists, Theists, etc.

As for Antony Flew - he is a theist, ergo, he believes in ID.