Mariner said:
Jeff, re: the Bible doesn't contradict Quantum Mechanics. That's exactly my point. If it did, then you guys would be concocting theories of "Intelligent Schrodinger Equations" in order to fight back against the godless physicists.
I honestly don't know where you are getting the whole "Christians hate science" thing. We don't. We just believe that God has a hand in science as well.
Regarding the Miller experiment--I last read about it in high school, and I'm no expert in that area, so you could well be right that it was not a good experiment. But I know enough biologists (and enough biology) to know that organic molecules form naturally, and I have no trouble believing that self-replicating molecules could arise on an early earth over a billion years. After all, cells are just layers of fat molecules--fat organizes itself into layers automatically. There are thousands of other examples of such "self-assembly" in biological systems that don't require the active hand of an Intelligent Designer.
The problem is that there are several parts of a cell that all need to be together at the same time in order to create life. There's a cellular membrane, DNA (and/or RNA), mitochondria, proteins (not just a few amino acids), enzymes, etc. All of these have to be incorporated all at once, with a meaningful DNA chain, in order for life to arise. Not possible, given the Earth's early atmosphere.
It's funny that the argument here is stuck on DNA now. When the idea of vitalism was giving up the ghost over several centuries, as science relentlessly demonstrated that biological systems were made from the same "stuff" as non-living things, the kidney was the last stand. The vitalists accepted that heart and lungs and everything else were made of regular molecules, but that the kidney, because if its amazing powers of filtration, must be evidence of God's hand. You guys are placing yourselves in the same position if you say, "I'll accept that the average biological molecule is just like any other molecule, but DNA is obviously intelligently designed."
Actually, I only use DNA because it is so unmistakably complex. The bacterial flagellum is a widely used example of irreducable complexity. It is a rotor that has three or four different parts, each of which is useless without its partners. Darwinian macroevolution states that such a thing would have to evolve piece by piece. But what advantage would that bacteria have with half of a rotor? Darwainian macroevolution states that it wouldn't, and so the extra pieces would be dropped before the whole flagellum evolved.
There are other examples, but those are two.
By the way, why would an intelligent designer include miles of junk in our precious DNA? Our DNA itself is one of the more powerful supports for evolution, as it's filled with leftover, turned-off genes for things like tails and scales that we no longer need. Look at a human embryo--it looks like a fish! Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny, and all that. Or compare human embryonic development to that of other creatures, and see how truly and averagely animal we are. Or look how much DNA we share even with plants, what to say of other animals. Why would an anti-evolutionary intelligent designer bother? Laziness?
First, as to embryos, you are mistaken. Please see
this primer for what embryos really look like. You may be surprised.
As to the genes you cite, many of these genes actually do have purposes that, with the help of genetics, we are just now discovering. Furthermore, we do share quite a bit of DNA with other living things (I think I heard that 67% of our DNA is common to a watermelon). But that actually supports ID, not evolution. We as humans design machines and objects that look a lot alike. Take cars, for example. There are many makes and models, yet look at the similarites: all have four tires, an internal combustion engine, doors, lights, and windshields. Yet, we designed some to be sporty, some to be efficient, some to haul cargo, etc. The same principle applies in life as well. Almost all animals have legs, for example, but some have 4, some have 6, some are different sizes, etc. depending on the animal.
But I'll come back to my main point: IDers are picking and choosing their scientific theories due to a religious preference. That alone should be reason to cast doubt on their ideas as science. All the while, they're driving cars, using laser pointers, and wearing fabrics made from genetically modified cotton, i.e. trusting and enjoying the very science they're seeking to tear down.
Again, Christians are not anti-science. Christians applaud science, but they also recognize God's hand in it. And ID uses scientific principles to prove the theory.
I have no problem with someone who says, "Maybe God created the Big Bang, the laws of the universe, and evolution." That seems to me the perfect way to reconcile religious belief with science. If I were a Christian, I'd put one of those Darwin fish-with-legs on my car face to face with a regular Christian fish, smooching.
Mariner.
Well, here's my take. God created the universe through the Big Bang. God set the principles of science into motion, to include physics, chemistry etc. God then stepped back into the universe and created life on Earth, and instituted biology - including m
icroevolution.
