Replies

You have two discernible flaws (?) in your statement below. If not flaws, then two points with which I take issue --

"steady and continuous progression from simpler to more complex life over billions of years, the so-called Intelligent Designer must be very actively creating new species after new species over this time."

(1) "steady and coninuous." Ahem. Just a little disingenuous there? Over the billions of years there is a readily inferable 'evolution' of life, but I would hardly call the fossil record continuous, and certainly not contiguous. There are important and numerous gaps in the fossil record AND there are amazing shifts in the various genomes across Kingdoms all the way down to Genus that are really difficult to support via natural selection's historical evidenciary trail. You catch my drift -- the fossil trail and the genetic trail are not substantially steady, continuous or contiguous per the scientific method to reach a valid conclusion(s)from the data that all life evolved by "chance".

(2) "Intelligent Designer must be very actively creating new species after new species over this time."

He could be, or more correctly has put a set of processes in place that (like the laws of Physics) enable the metabolism of life to build out His design. Indeed God may have directly intervened to create hummingbirds, sea cucumbers or man. Or He may have just set it all in motion with a perfect, intelligent design.

I leave you with this final point -- if there is a God, then He has the power to do what He pleases. WHY must scientists be atheistic in their pursuits and thinking? Why can't science legitimately assume the existence of God and then work to understand His intelligent design?

Is it because, fundamentally, these scientists are atheists?

He could be, or more correctly has put a set of processes in place that (like the laws of Physics) enable the metabolism of life to build out His design.

Mere speculation. From a philosophical point of view it is quite intersting, but from a scientific point of view, it lacks credibility. If we are the product of some grand design, where is the design? How are the creator's blueprints made manifest? What is the physical force or interaction responsible for executing the design? ID has never addressed questins such as these. It merely throws it's hans up and says we cannot figure it out so someone smarter than us did it.

Moreover, ID offers no explanation of where the designer came from, or how this designer does what it does. ID offers more holes and blank spaces than evolution. Also note that the author is a meteorologist, not a biologist.