FarflungWanderer Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 ... Have at it. http://www.icr.org/article/8214 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Institute for Creation Research-sums it all up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Their research continued, however, leading to their recent publication in the journal Nature.2 Instead of questioning evolution, it speculates on imaginary intermediates between two particular proteins that mutations and natural selection may have produced. Out of thousands of possible intermediates—each one representing a potential evolutionary path from an ancestral to a modern version of this protein—they discovered that none would work except an exceedingly unlikely extraordinarily lucky set of specific changes. In other words, it couldn’t just happen, and yet somehow it did. It looks like it happened entirely by design. So because its a statistically significant unlikelihood, then god! Just because a scientist can't figure out how it happened exactly doesn't mean that it didn't happen. And it certainly doesn't mean that it was influenced by a "designer". Its very unlikely that someone would win the lottery, but it happens. Its very, very unlikely someone would get struck by lightening more than once, but it happens. Just another example of how a situation or process that can't be easily explained doesn't require a "fill the gaps" response. A simple response of "We still don't know how it worked out exactly" would be fine and appropriate. This is just an opportunity for Christians and theists to grab a bite a run. Science doesn't always have the answers or even have very specific answers in some cases. And that is ok. Its not a reason to default to a "designer". It just means we don't know. Edit: For the record, I don't think the scientists stated the items I bolded. I suspect those words are from the ICR. Surprise, surprise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted January 15, 2015 Moderator Share Posted January 15, 2015 Biochemist Michael Behe... Game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Yeah the ICR "institute" is about as credible on evolution (or science in general) as hitler was about human rights. The case ain't closed, because there wasn't any case worth mentioning to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Those who reject evolution do not understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarflungWanderer Posted January 15, 2015 Author Share Posted January 15, 2015 Biochemist Michael Behe... Game over. I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Biochemist Michael Behe... Game over. I don't get it. Michael Behe is the author of Darwin's Black Box. He is responsible for notorious tripe. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/11/michael-behes-darwins-black-box-paul.html http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/29/twenty-years-after-darwin-on-t/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts