...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10 to the [40,000 exponent] to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
--Victor J. Stenger
BTW scotty, i did this one with as little emotion as possible just for you!
Here's one of the websites: (if this is being discussed in a week still, i'll post the others)
http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html
I'll give a quick abstract:
The main argument is based on two different kinds of order. This doctor and others i have read use this as a simple example:
"Let's explain these two kinds of order in greater detail. As you travel through various parts of the United States, you may come across unusual rock formations. If you consult a tourists' guide, you will learn that such shapes result when more than one type of rock make up the formation. Because their mineral composition varies, some rocks are softer than others. Rain and wind erode the soft parts of the formation faster than the hard parts, leaving the harder sections protruding. In this way, the formation may take on an unlikely shape. It may even come to resemble a familiar object like a face.
In other words, the formation may look as though it was deliberately carved. However, on closer inspection, say from a different angle, you notice the resemblance is only superficial. The shape invariably accords with what erosion can do, acting on the natural qualities of the rock (soft parts worn away, hard parts protruding). You therefore conclude the rock formed naturally. Natural forces suffice to account for the shape you see.
Now let's illustrate a different kind of order. Say in your travels you visit Mount Rushmore. Here you find four faces on a granite cliff. These faces do not follow the natural composition of the rock: the chip marks{14} cut across both hard and soft sections. These shapes do not resemble anything you have seen resulting from erosion. In this case the shape of the rock is not the result of natural processes. Rather, you infer from uniform experience that an artisan has been at work. The four faces were intelligently imposed onto the material.
None of us finds it difficult to distinguish between these two kinds of order, the one produced naturally and the other by intelligence. To come back to the argument from design, the question is: which kind of order do we find in nature?"
Proponents for ID go on to say that the difference is between random and complex orders. E. Coli has enough "letters of sequence" in it's DNA to fill more books than in the largest library in the world, and if jsut one "letter" is off, than it isn't E. COli. Random structures need very little instructions. THey said it's like a book that says "i love you" over and over again. However, one complex structure has many instructions, it's like programing a computer.
ID doesn't contradict evolution, but rather they are bound together. Design precedes adaptation. THe design for DNA is such that after it's set in place, evolution will take it's place. WHen Darwin (who originally supported ID until the death of his daughter who was 9 years old) theorized evolution, he knew practically nothing if anything of DNA. THis one thing [DNA] demonstrate what design is. Evolution demonstrates the result of design.
ID and Evolution must be taught side by side, it can be done in a secular way. ID doesn't make reference to GOD, just an organism that has progressed beyond us. It could be the result of man evolving in another galaxy to the point that they found ways of designing life. It could have been deity, or other things. As we can see there are many ways to look at ID.
I personally support both. I do think they are tied together. Obviously, my belief is also that it wasn't some other type of organism but
GOd who designed us. That part is the only non-secular part of the ID v. evolution theory.
Linear Mode
