Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Texas Federalist

==Only the idea of random selection is inconsistent with creationism.

Yes and no. Random selection is at odds with ID and Creationism. But IDers who postulate theistic evolution (from the simple to the complex) are at odds with both Darwinian evolution and Creation Science. But most of what IDers discover re: molecular biology will vindicated both ID and Creation Science. The real fight between ID and CS will come later re: origins.


48 posted on 07/06/2007 12:35:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: GodGunsGuts
Uh, Darwinian evolution was never "random" in any way, shape or form.

Does the term: "NATURAL SELECTION" ring any bells?

50 posted on 07/06/2007 12:38:31 PM PDT by Hunble (Islam is God's punishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts
But most of what IDers discover re: molecular biology will vindicated both ID and Creation Science.

This (the present article) doesn't. This only makes sense as an argument for "front loading" if you first accept that animals ARE all related by common descent, which contradicts "Creation Science". If you reject common descent then this only shows that the "designer" reused code in some particular pattern. But a priori the designer might have reused code in any particular pattern, or multiple patterns, or no particular pattern.

73 posted on 07/06/2007 1:15:30 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson