The ID Debate

Interesting article. I stopped comprehending the chemistry of that about the second sentence. Chemistry was never my strong suit. NaCL ... what?

I once read the book, "The Case for a Creator," which was a recitation of the various arguments for the ID proposition. Some were more compelling than others. For instance, I think any discussion about "the soul" -- and using "the soul" as the basis for evidence of our intelligent design -- is automatically one of pure speculation. It weakens the overall argument to introduce that.

Similarly, I think the discussions about the "finely tuned universe" are intriguing, but there's so much speculation in the whole realm of the astro-physics that I'm not sure I can base my strong suggestion of an intelligent designer on that either.

But the topic of the origin of life from basic molecular elements, and how from that might come the extraordinarily elegant structure of a single cell ... well, now we're talking. To me, this is by far the most intriguing area. This is pure science at that level -- the chemistry is well know, the biology is well known. That's not to say the origins of it all are understood, but the mechanics are understood, and subject to rigorous controlled scientific experimentation.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has adequately proven that elemental molecules could, on their own, form up simple amino acids, let alone more complex proteins, let alone RNA, let alone DNA, let alone a cell, let alone a bacteria, let alone an amoeba ... you get the point. Nobody has absolutely refuted it, either. I'm not sure that argument is even subject to proof or refutation.

Note: from what I understand -- and I don't understand the chemistry behind it -- the famous experiment from the 50's or 60's showing amino acids being formed from a controlled environment of organic gases and lightning was considerably flawed. It is cited as one of those things that despite its flaws, the "conclusion" found its way into "accepted fact," and that's where it's been ever since.

Now, there's a little bit of the same false logic being employed by both sides here, it seems.:

• Advocates of ID point to the lack of scientic proof for the naturalistic creation of life-forming proteins and say, "Ha! Therefore ID is possible, therefore it's true!"
• Advocates of naturalism point to the lack of scientific refutation of the theory (i.e., lack of "falsification") and say, "Ha! Therefore naturalism is possible, therefore it's true!"

For me ... I just got done scritching the chin of my sleepy cat. What's that prove?

Absolutely nothing! :-)