One of the first investigations I undertook dived into the concept of evolution. My findings that I had been hoodwinked from childhood shocked me to the core. Undertaken long before the Intelligent Design movement developed this was ‘fringe theory’ at the time – contempt poured on those written off by the mainstream as “just foolish, religious nutters”.
Evolutionary thought demonstrates the use of logical fallacies galore and as a priori assumptions, ad hominem and circular logic top the list of the techniques used by the deluded to try to convince the gullible of their belief. Evolutionary thought is essentially a violently defended religious fervour masking it’s claim to be godlike (i.e. claiming an exclusive lien on the truth), by denying a creator.
Design requires a designer. Increasing evidence of design exists. It is not possible to prove a negative without full knowledge thus the existence of a designer therefore is simply logical. Most call this designer God, whether this be the Hindu, Christian or Islamic versions is a secondary issue. Claiming that scientific processes do not deal with the spiritual nor critical questions such as morality or First Cause doesn’t solve the problem. It simply shows that an a priori assumption exists and elevates scientific endeavours to that equal to God.
Deliberate deception and shallow thought also exist as the validations for a bankrupt, untestable concept change over the years, yet the mantra remains. This is akin to cult-like, religious belief & indicates a hidden agenda, proving that facts are being misrepresented.
True scientific endeavour seeks to interpret real evidence, testing hypotheses with rational analysis of observable results. The Grand Canyon stratification for example, looks to me more like alluvial deposits laid down by a large flood, gouged out by substantial water flows as it flowed off the surrounding plains. When one tree-stump is found passing through more than one layer of material supposedly laid down over millennia, such exceptions would normally require modification of our long-age theories, normally, logically.
I love how simple concepts (such as Michael Behe’s ‘Irreducible Complexity’ and Werner Gitt’s ‘Information Theory’) also prove the impossibility of our existence without some form of intelligent designer. Both pre-dated the ID movement. Michael showed by describing the five components of a simple mouse-trap – all required simltaneously to function.
Werner also showed how information (the core building block of life) required five components simultaneously to exist: a sender & a receiver; a method to send and to receive; as well as a language. Thus a designer . . . can anyone disagree?
Both concepts prove emphatically that gradual development of what is mockingly referred to as, “From goo to you, via the zoo” is utterly, simply impossible. An inconceivably long distance of time cannot alter these fundamentals. Note carefully that the ID movement need not even mention the name of Christ, Mohammed or others. It just observes & thinks.
As far as my research has found, the evolutionary debate is not a debate of science vs religion – it is rather more an exercise in studying sound logic – an investigator’s expertise.