Here’s the challenge. Can any ID proponent detect design?
Category Creationism
Does not knowing exactly how something happened imply that it didn’t happen?
Creationists are constantly harping on the difference between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution”. ‘Micro’ being the small changes within a population that is readily observable in nature and the lab. ‘Macro’ being the larger changes between higher taxonomic levels. Personally, I greatly dislike this artificial distinction. There is evolution.
I was reading John’s free book today(PDF) (Thanks John!) and came across this quote, which so well refutes one of…
Bull cookies. Creationists have been claiming this for decades. Very often, they will also talk about how mutations damage genes…
Creationists complain when science can’t do in 20 minutes what it takes nature millions of years to do. Induced mutations…
We’ve finished talking about fossils and now we move to ‘presently observed nature weaknesses’ (I’m not even going to comment on the exceedingly poor wording.). What the Texas creationists have done is set up a system where each bit of evidence for evolution is considered individually and dismissed. Then, they claim that the entire theory has problems. As we shall see here, this causes them some problems.
This is another classic. It’s been around for decades, if not hundreds of years. Where are the transitional fossils?
With this part of our exploration of the ‘weaknesses of evolution‘ we move from origins of life into the fossil…
Ah, this is a modern classic. Indeed, this is what the idea of intelligent design is based on. I could go for hours on this topic. I will try to restrict myself to only refutations of this creationist claim.
There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.