Mycroft
The elder Holmes
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,068
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w6
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sp
I agree that the existance of god cannot be proven by science. And ID does not claim to do so. It confronts the assumption by darwinists that their theory is proof. It is not. And its flaws are beginning to show.
Long before ID was given a name, I ran across a book by a molecular biologist (and self proclaimed agnostic) titled "Evolution, a theory in crisis." This guy may not be an ID proponent. His point was that darwinism didn't work when you look at the basic building blocks of life.
He saw "distances" between different steps in the evolutionary process that could not statistically be traversed. Hence the jumping to the moon analogy. Many of the "steps" assumed in darwinism have 0% chance of occurring.
I watched an ID debate where the darwinist was talking about how fruit fly dna was manipulated to "turn off" sections of code that changed the number of legs or wings of the fruit fly. The ID proponent's point was that while mutations and natural selection can explain the switching on or off of sections of dna code, they cannot explain the existence of the code itself. Its kind of like wind and wave action can remove a turret on a sand castle or thow up sand against a wall, but they cannot build the castle. The castle can only come about by an intelligent and directed process.
It's true that there are certain stages in the progression from chemicals to life that science cannot presently account for. (And, I will mention as a side note, are outside the scope of evolutionary theory.) Hence there is dissent. Your so-called "ID scientists" are one variety of this dissent.
You are making a classic logical error:
There is something scientists can't presently explain!
Therefore, God exists.
By the by, your line of "reasoning" has a name.