Replies

If ID has to answer "who designed the designer" why doesn't evolution have to answer the origin of life question?

Why do evolutionists act like "Who designed the designer" is a one way street?

I've heard all the pre-programmed, regurgitated, in-the-box reasons why so please don't repeat them.

The The Origin-of-Life Prize ® is interesting to me because;

1) It is evolutionists encouraging revolutionary out-of-the-box thinking as evidenced by this statement; "The winning submission will likely provide both a novel and cardinal conceptual contribution to current biological science and information theory."

2) It is an open acknowledgement by evolutionists that honest evolutionists should be answering the origin of life question.

3) It is an open acknowledgement by evolutionists that a winning origin of life theory might change current thinking and "biological science and information theory" [the theory of evolution?] as evidenced by the words "novel" and "cardinal" in the statement above. This might mean a new theory that would take in both the theory of evolution *and* origin of life.

4) It faces certain problems head on by pointing out "In all known phenomenological life, genetic code manifests -

a) "prespecification of extremely unlikely and complex future events (see Dembski in suggested readings below) suggesting "apparent intent," "apparent planning," or "apparent purpose." (as Richard Dawkins describes it, "apparent design")"[ie there is a watchmaker (evolution) but he's blind]

b) "the seemingly "irreducible complexity" argued by Michael Behe (see suggested readings below)"

c) "the initial writing of this prescriptive information by nature, not just the modification of existing genetic instruction through mutation."

More discussion of this here;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1472221/posts?page=100#100

See this post for further comment;

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1472423/posts?page=463#463

Onward evolutionary soldiers!

If ID has to answer "who designed the designer" why doesn't evolution have to answer the origin of life question?

Setting aside then non-sequitur, the TOE doesn't have anything to say about the idea that space aliens or a generic 'god' might have started the whole process. It makes no hypothesis about that. It puts it in the 'we don't know and there is no evidence for it one way or the other' bin.

I've heard all . . .

Not only is He omniscient, so is this guy.