Posted by: FLPatriot | February 9, 2009

Where did it begin?

All right, I have spent time on different blogs and read a lot of different comments and it seams that the debate boils down to this question. Where did the first living cell come from?

This question has been asked in different ways and answered in different ways and I want to get down to the basics. I would like to get your opinion, knowledge or insight into this question. Where did the fist living organism come from?

I may be wrong about this, but some of the leading evolutionist scientists believe the theory that the first living cell came from mud (primordial soup is what they like to call it). Others lend themselves to “piggy backing on crystals”, which really does not explain where they came form only how they got to Earth.

Of course creationists believe that God created life with only a word. Intelligent Design proponents say that it was some sort of intelligence that created life spontaneously, but do not put a name to that intelligence.

Whats your opinion? I don’t care who is wrong, I just want to hear what others believe. If you have a link to a site please explain in your own words what you believe based on the information, but please do post links as we can follow them to read more details.


Responses

  1. No, Behe did so because one of two reasons:
    1) His work did not meet the criteria of science/scientific standards (see below)
    2) He knew his work would not meet the criteria and purposefully did so to avoid proper peer review.

    These reasons seem even more likely since, during the Dover trial, Behe was revealed to be grossly ignorant of the very field he claims expertise in. He claimed, for example, that Evolution could not explain the immune system – at which point dozens of peer reviewed papers were produced which showed it clearly did.

    The man was also forced to admit that for ID to be counted as science, the very definition of science would have to be changed.

    Add to that his research has thus far found to be baseless and fruitless (not one examples of irreducible complexity has ever been found) and it can be safe to say that Behe is far from credible.

    Again, you seem to be sounding rather paranoid and so far failing to provide any proof of this so called peer review bias.

  2. “His work did not meet the criteria of science/scientific standards”

    When the criteria is set by evolutionists how is a creationist supposed to meet them?

    Behe did not “purposefully”…”avoid proper peer review”, he was reviewed by his peers.

    I agree he did not perform well under cross examination at the Dover trial, but that does not negate his rights, or anyone else’s right, to scientifically research alternative theories. Which is why the peer review process is broken, it restricts growth and stifles free thought. I say peer review is tosh.

  3. When the criteria is set by evolutionists how is a creationist supposed to meet them?

    Prove that it is so. Your sweeping statements are not evidence.
    Scientific standards are a consensus set of criteria established by the scientific community. Now you might say in response to that something like ‘the scientific community are all evolutionists!’. That is fine, you just then need to wonder why the pre-eminent intellectuals of our time almost universally accept the Theory of Evolution as a solid scientific theory.

    Because it was what all the evidence squarely points to and no one has been able to produce a scientific theory which better explains said evidence.

    Behe did not “purposefully”…”avoid proper peer review”, he was reviewed by his peers.

    Not at all. Your own statement, assuming that it is true, says he hand picked those he wanted to review his book. That is not how the peer review process in any way, shape or form. It would be like me writing a book and getting my mate from down the pub to review it.
    The peer review process is blind for a very reason, what Behe apparently did nullifies that reason.

    but that does not negate his rights, or anyone else’s right, to scientifically research alternative theories.

    He is more than welcome to do so. I, in fact, applaud to such efforts. However, first those efforts must be scientific in nature. Intelligent Design is not science as it fails all manner of criteria for being so (unfalsifiable, no predictions, no evidence, etc). It really is only creationism in a silly hat, afterall (as shown by the wedge strategy document).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: