Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:03:44 AM
"but neither in Evolution nor ID have we have never observed life coming from where there was no life before or been able to recreate it."
If you're saying what I think you`re saying (and it`s difficult to tell because I can detect at least one double-negative in your statement), then you`re saying evolution fails to address the origin of life because even with the existence of random mutation, nothing in evolution indicates we came from non-life. Okay, fair enough. But what you`re missing is that IT IS UNFAIR TO CALL THIS A WEAKNESS OF EVOLUTION BECAUSE IT IS UNDERSTOOD EVOLUTION DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. Is that clear enough for you?
Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:02:58 AM
"Evolution vs. Intelligent Design is focusing on the origin of life."
No it's not. Evolution was never meant to address the problem, so it`s unfair to call that a weakness of evolution. Intelligent design says we were created. Okay, sure. Can they back up that claim? Can they find a creator or at least conduct an experiment that indicates some creation? No. It fails therefore completely as science.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008 5:57:52 AM
"...Which is something else you failed to consider: the ability to conduct an experiment is a crucial aspect of the scientific method, something for which ID cannot account."
You are ignoring one very crucial fact. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design is focusing on the origin of life. We have never observed nor been able to recreate life coming from something that has no life. Yes, we have observed random mutations, but neither in Evolution nor ID have we have never observed life coming from where there was no life before or been able to recreate it.