Does Science Point to Intelligent Design?

(4.8)

Topics: Big Bang, Creation, Evolution, Existence of God, Origins, Engineering & Technology, Natural Sciences & Math, Science

Let me correct my typo in my previous statement. A more simpler and easier understandable concept, is reproduction with its complexity.
paula.smith, Oct 20, 2007 | 9:04 pm
I contacted Dr. Dembski about this already, my opinion. Prof. Behe from Lehigh uses flagellum to show how the series of mini-mutations can't produce flagellum. A more simpler and easier understandable people is the reproduction of, say an animal like a monkey. Darwinian evolution says series of mutation with survival of the fittest is selected by nature, so 'in the beginning', the monkey had no reproduction organ but after many mutations of next generations, eventually, the mutation causes one monkey to have the 'male' reproductive organ. And many generations later, since typical mutations are bad, we need many generations to go by before the 'female' reproductive organ is found in a monkey. This is obviously a paradox that can't be explained by the Darwinists. And the big man who believes in Darwinian evolution is Richard Dawkins who wrote "Climbing Mount Improbable" which says small steps up the mountain results in getting to the top. Obviously, his idea collapses since the very first step can't happen since w/o reproduction, how can a mutation of the next generation occur? I wonder if Richard Dawkins can answer this paradox.
paula.smith, Oct 18, 2007 | 12:00 am

The Veritas Forum