For example, the possibility of chimpanzees and gorillas taking over the planet and enslaving humans is consistent with the modern evolutionary synthesis. That evolutionary scenario, with its obvious dependence on the evolutionists’ mindset, was the basis for all the planet of the ape movies. But anything like those events would falsify the theory of devolution.

All laughter aside, the simplest way to falsify the theory of devolution, if it were possible, is to find mutants of Escherichia coli that are unquestionably healthier than their ancestral strains.

As far as faith is concerned, is it really believing something for which there are no facts? Only a fool would do this. Science can not answer the question of the existence or nature of a Divine Being, but it can and does point to the most reasonable explanation for the origen of species: Intellegent Design.

How can we definitively know there is a God? He has written it in his creation. This world is so intricately put together and so much depends on the most miniscule of parts, that’s how we can know for sure. It is incredible to me that anyone could be so arrogant as to leave God out of creation. But I understand that to admit there might be a God is to put a person in subjegation to the laws dictated by that God. Boy, those two most important commands are really horrible aren’t they? To love God and to love your neighbor be they friend or foe. Better to argue there is no God and to try and discredit him with the science He created.

I will continue to live my life as if there is a God and be relieved to find out there isn’t one, than to live my life as if there isn’t a God to find out in horror that there is.

In my mind, science proves there is a God with a magnificient creativity and love.

It’s annoying reading kids’ posts online. read guys… read.

the complexity argument is a multiple loozer, Sharon.
Go back to Oral Roberts and take a course in probability and statistics.
If they even offer it there.

/giggles

I take the following paragraphs from Nancy Pearcey’s book “Total Truth” (2005),pp.181-2:

“Critics say that the concept of design does not belong in science. They argue that it is a ’science stopper’ that puts an end to scientific investigation . . . . But that accusation is based on a misunderstanding. The process of detecting design is thoroughly empirical. In fact, it is already an important element in several areas of science. Back in 1967, I was startled to read a newspaper article announcing that astronomers may have discovered radio messages coming from outer space. They dubbed the signals ‘LGM’ to signify ‘Little Green men.’ Later, however, they realized that the radio impulses were coming in a regular, recurring pattern like the flashing of a lighthouse, not an irregular pattern like the sequence of letters in a message. what they had discovered were not aliens but pulsars–rotating stars.

“Today astronomers involved in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) have worked out extensive criteria for recognizing when a radio signal is an encoded message and when it is just a natural phenomenon, like a pulsar. In other words, they have developed criteria for distinguishing between products of design and products of natural causes.”

“The same distinction is made in several other fields:

-Detectives are trained to distinguish murder (design) from death by natural causes.
-Archaeologists have criteria for distinguishing when a stone has the distinctive chip marks of a primitive tool (design), and when its shape is simply the result of weathering and erosion.
-Insurance companies have steps for deciding whether a fire was a case of arson (design) or just an accident.
-Cryptologists have worked out procedures to determine whether a set of symbols is a secret message (design) or merely a random sequence.”

Pearcey later sets forth the most recent and powerful evidence that living systems were designed: the DNA code, which is made up of chemically arbitrary sequences of 4 chemical “letters” (amino acids). She allows Richard Dawkins to explain the significance of this, “What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. The genetic code is truly digital,in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is the literal truth.” (Richard Dawkins, “Why Prince Charles is So Wrong”, Checkbiotech.org, January 28, 2003 at http://www.checkbiotech.org.)

Clearly, just as a design implies a designer, a book (or computer code)implies an author. Given that any one cell in our bodies contains more information than “the entire 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica” (Total Truth, p. 196), how can it be irrational to suspect an intelligent source of so much complex information?