Replies

Evolutionary theory has a problem because it is 'too strong.' The same arguments against a cosmic creator can be used to show that there are no persons, no minds, no design and no creation.

When an evolutionist looks at a 747 he tries to explain it in terms of a causal chain of physical events (which he can if he is detailed enough). However he misses the true explaination for the existence of the 747 which is the minds of the engineer and machinists who created it.

Intentionally or not, you've just written something very profound that should always be at the forefront of these arguments.

Evolution can only teach by what physical process -- HOW -- we got here. It is science and only science, and therefore only answers the less important half of the big question. The other half, which evolution can't even touch, is WHY are we here, what purpose do we have. This is the job of religion.

Unfortunately, Creation Science tries to cross the line and also explain how, and does a quite pitiful job of it. Religion's useful place in explaining the physical world went away a long time ago, when we realized lightning and storms were not God's wrath, and that rain was not coming down through openings in the firmament.

"When an evolutionist looks at a 747 he tries to explain it in terms of a causal chain of physical events (which he can if he is detailed enough). However he misses the true explaination for the existence of the 747 which is the minds of the engineer and machinists who created it."

Heh heh. Ever see the original "Connections" TV series, which beautifully illustrated the evolution of invention from the battle of Hastings in 1066 (first use of stirrups in battle) to the first landing on the moon in 1968? To ignore that science and invention evolve through human generations via teaching, learning, trial, and error is to put them into the category of magic and superstition.

When an evolutionist looks at a 747 he tries to explain it in terms of a causal chain of physical events (which he can if he is detailed enough). However he misses the true explaination for the existence of the 747 which is the minds of the engineer and machinists who created it.

Fair enough, but if someone tried to suggest that the 747 was created in seven days by an invisible man who lived in the sky, I don't think we'd take him seriously.

I'm agnostic (or maybe not, I'm not sure...) so I don't categorically deny the possibility that we and the universe we live in is the handiwork of some "thing"- but I would stil see the creation in a sort of deist, cosmic watchmaker way, not an "Abracadabra watch me pull a cosmos out of my hat" sort of thing.

When an evolutionist looks at a 747 he tries to explain it in terms of a causal chain of physical events (which he can if he is detailed enough). However he misses the true explaination for the existence of the 747 which is the minds of the engineer and machinists who created it.

For an example of something that has order without design, look at the development of languages. No one individual say down and designed the languages, they developed over time as they were used, and there is no one correct version of any language. An exception is obviously computer programming languages, those were designed to be logically rigorous. But compare the logic of C++ to the illogic of English.

When an evolutionist looks at a 747 he tries to explain it in terms of a causal chain of physical events (which he can if he is detailed enough). However he misses the true explaination for the existence of the 747 which is the minds of the engineer and machinists who created it.

Actually the opposite is true. When a creationist looks at a 747 he tries to explain the astronomical odds of the chain of physical events that took place to create the 747 and concludes that the odds against the 747 being built by man are so great that it is like winning the lottery a thousand times in a row...therefore God Must Have Created the 747!