[gbrutt]

Response to Klvino (and the many others)

Behe didn’t really plumb the depths of intelligent design as much as expand on the idea of irreducible complexity. He is not, by his own admission, a Christian. He is a scientist who is trying to make sense of the Creation/evolution debate for himself while at the same time is perplexed at the lack of response from the scientific community. The examples of I/C he lists the development of the eye, exploding beetles, blood clotting, all point to intricate systems which have no way of developing on their own. You say that there are some examples of scientists who disproved this, I would be interested in hearing more about them. Behe never says evolution is impossible, rather, he is a rare scientist who cannot answer the questions which face him in the evolutionary model and is honest about it. Read the book again.

On to your field of expertise, software. There I must bow to your knowledge and experience, it is quite beyond my reckoning, except for the gadgets and games that I immensely enjoy. Still, in your anecdote, each step involves a human mind adding to or manipulating data in order to achieve a desired result. No software yet has ever sprung up whole from nothing. There is always a programmer, and engineer, a tech, who put each piece in place. It all requires a mind, your mind, to make it move and work. The program may evolve, but that is only after a great many steps were taken to insure that the conditions were favorable to this result.

The reason that I say that life must come from life is that every scientist knows that it is so. The Laws of Biogenesis prove that life comes from life. All living organisms come from living organisms. We cannot create matter and energy in a lab, no matter who controls the experiment. So how is it then, according to your beliefs, that life came to be? The Steady State Theory was abandoned years ago as untenable, so it must have come about in some fashion.

Also, I never twisted your words. I quoted them and then commented on that quote. I said that no one can escape theological language as it is the way that we are. To use the word miracle is to give assent to the concept of something, whether you admit it or not. If you don't like it, choose another word. On another point, “The fact is that creationism mythology is not science and cannot ever compete with it.” Klvino, look at your own post. It is littered with phrases like, "more than likely," "by random chance," "no one knows," "the extreme possibility." This is fact that you flout, the mighty truth which is to topple Christianity? If you read the same halting words, but from another's post, would you call it science, or in the words of the Apostle Paul, “science falsely so-called.”?

I have a question for you. In the words of Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?” What evidence can you provide to prove your your hypothesis? In your evolutionist point of view, how did all that is get here? How do you explain irreducible complexity in relation to forms of life? Can you tell me how is it possible that they could have come about? What about the utter lack of intermediate forms, which should be superabundant, given the amount of time and fossils which have been uncovered? Or the fact that even given the greatest possible amount of time, the radical changes from one type to another are impossible?

As to the God made a booboo when he made man idea, you err because you assume that man is now as he always is. A man named Descartes also said something similar, but from the perspective of the philosophical. “If there is a god, he is a devil.” In trying to understand how God could make man, who is inherently beautiful and creative, yet also ugly, or evil; Descartes reasoned that if there is a God, he is a devil. This presumes that God made man as he now is. If this is the case, Descartes is right. There is another factor that changes all of the speculations. Something happened to sever the relationship that God had with man. Christians know this as the fall. As a result, man is both beautiful, capable of creating wondrous works to stir the imagination; and is able to commit unspeakable horrors. It also means that we must turn to God to be rescued from our present state. If you have further interest on the subject, Francis Scaeffer’s books are highly recommended to expand on this further. He is a far better spokesman than I could ever be. Try his trilogy, The God is There, He is There and He is Not Silent, and Escape from Reason.

Lastly, (for now), and this is to Instar. You mention two passages of Scripture. The first one details Onan, found in Genesis 38:4-10. The second is Malachi 2:3. Just what your post is supposed to mean, I'm not certain. Was there a context to this, or is the reader left to guess at the underlying motivation? Perhaps you should go back and try it again. Better yet, lay aside your Skeptic's Annotated Bible, pick up the Bible, and read it. I recommend the same to all of you. Job 38 is a nice place to start. Goodnight for now.