Replies

And I believe each of the above could also support the genesis account. When you say "hierarchical structure of taxonomy" I'm guessing you're referring to the common features of different species. (That's a wild guess. I'm no scientist and don't feel like looking it up) When man creates machines he uses similar parts to create machines with entirely different functions. I don't think it's a stretch to see a creator doing the same in various species. I've been slammed for using that comparison before but we are creators in our own right, are we not? We advance our technology by using old ideas and tweaking them a bit.

Great, so how does one scientifically go about proving this? This is the forum we're talking about, after all. Anyone can sit around and have a few beers and throw out ideas, but it isn't scientific until you've tested them? How do you scientifically test the idea of a Creator?

How do you scientifically test the idea of a Creator?

This is part of why these discussions always become so heated. Evolutionist ask questions in the wrong direction so often, "Creationist" are left with little else to conclude but that it's intentional.

ID theory is not about proving a Creator; it's about dis-proving evolutionary theory by making it testable. ID theorists test evolutionary concepts by the tenents of the information sciences, and that's not ground where evolution fairs well. When you want to find out where and how a complex, molecular, programmed system comes about, you don't ask a biologist. You ask an information theorist and/or a chemist.

The existance of an intellegent designer as an alternative explaination is peripheral.