"4.
"God of the gaps! Goddidit!"
By itself, this is merely another arbitrary assertion. But let's take a closer look...
Consider first of all that intelligence and information are natural mechanisms...
Creationists and IDers, rather than arguing from ignorance,
can easily support creation and design logically, based on what we do know from observation of these natural mechanisms and others! (And when we factor in the principle of cause and effect, the supernatural implications of such observations are obvious. This is precisely why Darwinists reject even the mere suggestion of intelligence, despite that it's purely a natural mechanism from their own perspective, and should therefore be allowable in science.)
For example: Based on all that we've observed of the natural mechanism of encoded information, we know that it originates from intelligence only. And so, there is absolutely zero basis to infer that what evolutionists propose as the first information (such as that found in simple cells) came from a mindless, undirected cause!
At this point, the atheist will often argue that DNA does not contain information, but this is simply false:http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna
As a last ditch effort, atheists may attempt to claim that information is merely an emergent result of the arrangement of chemicals in an organism. But this is equivalent to claiming that one could open up Microsoft Word, turn the keyboard upside down, and with a blindfold on start writing information with instructional value to assemble functional systems (replication is a specific function, for example). Obviously, the results would be gibberish with zero function or selectable benefit.
And finally, on a more down to earth level, if DNA information didn't have real meaning, why do we as intelligent beings incorporate what we learn from living organisms into man made design and engineering?
...So there we have just one of many sound logical arguments for creation and design, where no argument from ignorance is necessary.
On the other side of the coin, you'll very often catch atheists using a "Nature of the Gaps" fallacy...
For example, just the other day I was debating an atheist who argued in favor of abiogenesis by saying, "We haven't yet demonstrated life from non life, however, we're here and alive, aren't we?!" ...In other words, despite conceding that we've never observed abiogenesis, he was concluding natural causation anyhow - thereby filling in an "I don't know" with nature."
FromTheSilverBulletThatKilledEvolution
"God of the gaps! Goddidit!"
By itself, this is merely another arbitrary assertion. But let's take a closer look...
Consider first of all that intelligence and information are natural mechanisms...
Creationists and IDers, rather than arguing from ignorance,
For example: Based on all that we've observed of the natural mechanism of encoded information, we know that it originates from intelligence only. And so, there is absolutely zero basis to infer that what evolutionists propose as the first information (such as that found in simple cells) came from a mindless, undirected cause!
At this point, the atheist will often argue that DNA does not contain information, but this is simply false:http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna
As a last ditch effort, atheists may attempt to claim that information is merely an emergent result of the arrangement of chemicals in an organism. But this is equivalent to claiming that one could open up Microsoft Word, turn the keyboard upside down, and with a blindfold on start writing information with instructional value to assemble functional systems (replication is a specific function, for example). Obviously, the results would be gibberish with zero function or selectable benefit.
And finally, on a more down to earth level, if DNA information didn't have real meaning, why do we as intelligent beings incorporate what we learn from living organisms into man made design and engineering?
...So there we have just one of many sound logical arguments for creation and design, where no argument from ignorance is necessary.
On the other side of the coin, you'll very often catch atheists using a "Nature of the Gaps" fallacy...
For example, just the other day I was debating an atheist who argued in favor of abiogenesis by saying, "We haven't yet demonstrated life from non life, however, we're here and alive, aren't we?!" ...In other words, despite conceding that we've never observed abiogenesis, he was concluding natural causation anyhow - thereby filling in an "I don't know" with nature."
FromTheSilverBulletThatKilledEvolution
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you?
James 3:13
James 3:13
