More Mindless OOL Nonsense

Hey Cordova. I cannot help but remember meeting you over at the Discovery Institute some years back and being impressed by the clear genuineness of your appreciation and interest for ID.

Likewise, and nice to hear from you. Sal scordova

Hey Cordova. I cannot help but remember meeting you over at the Discovery Institute some years back and being impressed by the clear genuineness of your appreciation and interest for ID. It is good to see that you are still working at the problem. I think ID is getting nearer and nearer towards an accepted scientific theory. While I don't know if there are any substantive developments in the public and political areas for ID- I do know that books like Signature In The Cell have managed to hold 4 star rating over at Amazon.com for a good time now despite the barrage of fraudulent one star reviews put forth by ID haters and religious bigots who fear ID will help convert people over to faith. Fundamentally, I think ID is getting better and better at winning debates. I know that now- the more I know about ID and the problems that evolutionary theory encounters in biology and cosmology- the easier it is for me to explain to skeptics why IDis legitimate. As a scientific theory ID can justify itself on a purely scientific basis. On OOL, the topic of our post- IF it was such a slam dunk for Darwinists then why do so many of the best Darwinists agree that at the present it clearly is little more than a conundrum? When you cannot even build life in the lab it becomes terribly difficult to argue that life actually arose via mechanisms of the "undirected" and intelligent kind. Likewise in cosmology, even going way back, people like Hoyle knew that the fine tuning we see that supports our complex carbon based life is so tightly calibrated that the realization of intelligence being behind it, or playing an integral role, is a nearly inescapable consideration. For the odds of a disordered universe that could not have support any carbon based life, is exceedingly more probable. But when it comes to religions, like Darwinism- probabilities are pushed to the side and replaced by dumb luck- and explanations are written promissory notes that must taken in good faith- -or bad faith. Frost122585

J. D. Bernal commented in The Origin of Life: "Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence." Consider the underlying import of Bernal's statement. It's like saying, "Scientifically it is correct to state that life cannot have begun by itself. But spontaneously arising life is the only possibility that we will consider. So it is necessary to bend the arguments to support the hypothesis that life arose spontaneously." Circular reasoning doesn't help your case. Barb

It is interesting that in his blog Larry Moran shows a can of Campbell's Soup mocked up for the purpose of his post. I ask, how many times has life originated inside the billions of soup cans produced to date? ZERO! No life will ever originate inside a sterilized can of soup, never. You can make the soup with whatever chemicals you want and it will never happen. Only life can generate life! aedgar

Well, for once we can more or less agree with Moran. It's a strange world :) ! Maybe our next supporter is going to be Dawkins... gpuccio

"There are several possibilities and none of them are particularly convincing." How odd. The one possibility that is completely rational, explains all of the evidence, is right in front of everyone's nose, and is thus very convincing is ID. But that CAN'T be the answer because it's "not scientific." Whatever that is. These people are not going to get it just because they WILL NOT. tgpeeler