Kirk Cameron said it best, when he said that nature can produce patterns, but it cannot produce meaningful information. I prefer to think of it as, nature cannot produce deliberate actions. In nature, we do not see beautiful buildings, or even ugly buildings for that matter. Ugly buildings require deliberate actions to create them; actions that nature cannot offer. If that is true for ugly buildings, then how true must it be for beautiful buildings? In winter, you can sleep in a hotel made of ice. Ice is naturally occurring, but it takes craftsmanship and business expertise to create something like this, and then make it profitable. It takes deliberate actions that are beyond the capabilities of nature. Nature can make beautiful mountains, awe inspiring sunsets, and wonderful prairies. It cannot create a complex building.
Subconsciously, we recognize that nature cannot create a complex building, but we are prone to giving the credit of that recognition to our records [e.g. "We know that that building was built by people, because we have records to prove it." as opposed to "We know that that building was built by people because nature is incapable of doing that without creator intervention."]. Do we really need records to prove that buildings were created? I do not. Nature can go only so far.
In the same way, I think that our bodies can mutate only a certain amount. Obviously, I am not a scientist, so I cannot prove this. It would be interesting to see this tested in the lab. If the results show that there is a limit, then it would lend credibility to my claim that nature does not produce deliberate actions.
In conclusion, I think that much of the debate must occur in the context of what is average, and what evolution is really capable of, and what fingerprints of an intelligent designer look like.
Creationism is not science, neither is intelligent design. They do not belong in a science classroom any more than "speaking in tongues" should be accepted as a foreign language requirement along with German, French, Spanish or Latin.
ReplyDeleteBiological evolution is a fact. It is the occurrence of inheritable changes in the gene pool of a population over time, and is easily demonstrated.
Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome
Thank you for taking time to restate what has been said on the internet.
ReplyDeleteI'm not being silly when I say that. I mean it. Thanks for visiting and commenting. I appreciate it, even though I am sure that your views have been stated over and over again.
ReplyDelete