tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19413647.post113326253599016208..comments2007-05-15T10:31:17.100+01:00Gaute Lindkvisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03337426660565791627noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19413647.post-65969765144559072442007-05-15T10:31:00.000+01:002007-05-15T10:31:00.000+01:00Aaargh! I mean<BR/><BR/>http://www.answersingenesis.org<BR/>/creation/v23/i3/muddywaters.asp<BR/><BR/>It's too long to go on one line :-)<BR/><BR/>PeterPeterCWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08406575796821538109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19413647.post-30822470415905641952007-05-15T10:30:00.000+01:002007-05-15T10:30:00.000+01:00The link should read http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/muddywaters.asp<BR/><BR/>PeterPeterCWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08406575796821538109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19413647.post-83402709697235122622007-05-15T10:28:00.000+01:002007-05-15T10:28:00.000+01:00Interesting post, but a little confused. <BR/><BR/>"evolution and the theory of natural selection are not the same thing"<BR/><BR/>Quite, but evolution depends on natural selection. Where they differ is that evolution demands an <B>increase</B> in information, whereas natural selection, by definition, simply <B>selects</B> the best information.<BR/><BR/>"Evolution is easily observable on flies, bacteria and other organisms in laboratories."<BR/><BR/>With respect, nonsense. No laboratory experiment has ever observed a mutation which has <B>increased</B> information. We can observe natural selection in a lab easily --- and in the wild, too. E.g. beetles with wings get blown off an island, so in the end all the beetles on the island are flightless. This is not evolution; simply natural selection.<BR/><BR/>"Intelligent design uses evolution but tries to challenge the theory of natural selection."<BR/><BR/>I think you mean that ID uses natural selection but challenges the theory of evolution. <BR/><BR/>"natural selection proposes that evolution has been happening through the survival of the organisms best suited to their environment"<BR/><BR/>Yes, but once again, natural selection simply selects the organisms that are best suited to their environment. What it does not explain is where the information came from which allowed those organisms to be better suited to the environment than their peers.<BR/><BR/>"Intelligent design proposes that evolution was guided by a designer, which of course means God."<BR/><BR/>Depends on what kind of intelligent design you mean. Most ID proponents I know do not believe that evolution (i.e. information-increasing mutations) happens at all, though they all accept that natural selection happens. I have never heard an ID proponent say that evolution is guided by a designer.<BR/><BR/>"Finally, why shouldn't we teach children that natural selection is a theory and not a fact, so that they can keep an open mind?"<BR/><BR/>Again, no ID proponent wants this. They all accept natural selection as a fact and teach it themselves. Again, natural selection is observable. Evolution --- the belief that information can be produced by random mutations --- is what ID proponents object to.<BR/><BR/>"Personally I see no conflict between belief in God and the theory of natural selection."<BR/><BR/>You're barking up the wrong tree completely. All ID proponents and even the most hardline creationists accept natural selection as a fact. See for example http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/muddywaters.asp.<BR/><BR/>Where there is a conflict is between belief in God --- I mean in the Christian God of the Bible --- and belief in evolution. If evolution is true, then millions of years of death and suffering passed before man appeared on Earth. On whom do we blame this suffering? On a loving God? The creationist can blame it on the right reason --- man.<BR/><BR/>In conclusion you start by suggesting you are going to discuss <BR/>intelligent design versus Evolution (notice the capital E in evolution? that's how you think of it --- just like Christians write God with a capital G). But then the rest of your post discusses natural selection, even though you admit they are not the same thing. <BR/><BR/>Not sure if you were tired when you wrote it or just careless, but a lot more research is needed before you write on the subject again! <BR/><BR/>Summary - ID does not argue with natural selection. It just says that if natural selection is true, there must have been a set of traits to select from. What evolution can never explain is where this set of traits came from. <BR/><BR/>PeterPeterCWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08406575796821538109noreply@blogger.com