While it indisputable that evolution takes place, it is also indisputable that we don't yet know how it takes place. Nobody can thus far explain the gap, or better chasm between organic chemicals and supposedly primitive viruses, nor how a polyp of about 2 billion years ago already had nerves and muscles. To say that the proponents of the thoery of intelligent design are correct or incorrect is therefore a leap of faith. When Mr. Hitchens calls such proponents fools he displays not only his lack of knowledge about biology, but also his arrogance. On his path to humility Mr. Hitchens might read up on Einstein's views on this subject.

While I concur with redmanrt's statement that we do not yet know how evolution takes place, I would also add that we also do not know why. As a Christian, I am often challenged by other Christians because I believe in evolution. I have no problem marrying the two "beliefs" together. I also find it extraordinary that some many search so hard for proof that there is no God and often end up finding information that points to God. As to his claim that, as Andromedea collides with our Galaxy, there will be shouts of "I told you so", I believe there will be shouts of "God Help Us".

In this case I don't the difference between the questions of why and how. Anyway, here is another indisputable assertion - The 4 or so billion years commonly assigned to the span of this planet are not enough to account for the complexity of life. Therefore, either part of the evolutionary process had to take place elsewhere, or some force had to intervene in order to accelerate the process here. Now where does that leave us, Mr. Hitchens?

Redmanrt: here is another indisputable assertion - The 4 or so billion years commonly assigned to the span of this planet are not enough to account for the complexity of life.

LeRoy: Except that your 'indisputable assertion' is highly disputable, and is in fact disputed by the scientific community.

On what basis are you making the claim that you have made an 'indisuptable assertion'???

Redmanrt: To say that the proponents of the thoery of intelligent design are correct or incorrect is therefore a leap of faith.

LeRoy: Here is where you are confused: no one is actually saying the proponents of intelligent design are 'correct or incorrect'. For all we know, there may be an intelligent designer. What is being said is that the idea is not a theory, in the scientific sense of the word. It is not a testable proposition, and therefore does not qualify as science.

The judge in the Dover, Pennsylvania case regarding the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes, made these points with stunning eloquence. You really should try reading his decision sometime.

redmanrt:

The 4 or so billion years commonly assigned to the span of this planet are not enough to account for the complexity of life.

Says who?

But I refuse to accept that "why" is a valid question to ask of every possible phenomenon. Asking "why" is like trying to debunk a conspiracy theory- there's always another coverup that the government doesn't want you to know about. Any child can ask "why?" to every explanation, going further and further down the rabbit hole until an exasperated parent, knowing that the child will never understand (while perhaps admitting that there are limits also to an adult's knowledge), replies, "Because God made it so and we're not allowed to question God." But to insert God into that argument doesn't answer the why. It's merely a means to an end, to answer the question and silence the questioner.

There does not HAVE to be an answer that you're capable of understanding and your lack of understanding does not mean that there's a god who does. It only means that you don't understand, and only your ego (or lack of humility, to clothe it in religious terms you'll understand) prevents you from accepting that. Mine, however, allows me to sleep late on Sunday mornings.

The proof of my assertion was`in my first post which you didn't bother to read.

"While I concur with redmanrt's statement that we do not yet know how evolution takes place, I would also add that we also do not know why."

>>Why are you presuming purpose?

Those indisputable assertions sure are disputable. I know how evolution takes place. One can learn about it in a first year college biology course.

I don't know for certain, empirically, that billions of years is sufficient to produce the complexity of life on Earth, but I know there isn't much reason to doubt it. If a few tens of thousands of years of breeding in relatively small numbers can turn a grey wolf into a chihuahua, it shouldn't be hard to imagine how untold numbers of organisms undergoing mutation and selection around the planet for billions of years could produce some pretty nice diversity.

And while there isn't any calculation to account for this (how on Earth would one even begin calculating?), I do know that Demski et al and other IDists formulae which supposedly disprove the possibility of emergence of long sequences by evolutionary means are total baloney math. Basically, they assume evolution is deterministic, when it isn't.

The biological mechanisms of inheritance don't exhibit 100% fidelity--known natural mechanisms introduce changes into a population's gene pool at a low but non-zero frequency. These changes result in phenotypic variety within the population. Natural selection acts to conserve changes which increase relative fitness and to oppose conservation of those that decrease relative fitness with respect to the specific environment the population exploits. Over time, the serial accumulation of multiple discrete changes, each selected for with respect to environment at the time they arose, results in the creation of the biological diversity we observe.

"Nobody can thus far explain the gap, or better chasm between organic chemicals and supposedly primitive viruses, nor how a polyp of about 2 billion years ago already had nerves and muscles."

>>The gap between organic molecules, viruses and the first living organisms isn't within the scope of evolutionary theories: they only address change in populations of already living organisms, not the origin of the first life on earth--you're conflating biogenesis with evolution.

As for polyps, how is the observation that 2 billion years ago they already had nerves and muscles a problem for evolution?

"To say that the proponents of the theory of intelligent design are correct or incorrect is therefore a leap of faith."

>>What's actually being said is that there is no evidence which supports ID, and that correct or incorrect ID isn't a scientific paradigm. Until such time as ID proponents do three things (identify a reliable method to identify design in biological systems--a way to distinguish something that is designed from something that merely appears to have been designed; identify the natural mechanism or mechanisms by which the intelligent designer or designers realize their design in sufficient detail that it offers testable predictions, making ID falsifiable; identify and establish the existence of the intelligent designer, so that their model no longer violates parsimony) it isn't a scientific model and possesses no real explanatory power.

I just wasn't very impressed by it.

As others (JGC) have noted, you are, for one thing, confusing the question of biogenesis (the origins of life) with evolution (the history of life). If we don't know much about the origins of the city of Rome, would you advocate stripping out everything concerning the Roman Empire from the history books?

You seem to claim to have some knowledge of biology. You might want to read my post titled "72 Nobel Laureates Think You Are An Ignoramus". Although it wasn't directed toward you, it might as well have been.

I happen to have a degree in biology, and all I'm saying is that we don't have enough evidence to declare either the darwinists or the creationists the winners in the debate. I guess that's too difficult for poor Leroy to understand.

I figured it out. Leroy has spent so much time in the dark democrat cave that his brain has become vestigial. Now that's evolution for you!

Redmanrt: I happen to have a degree in biology, and all I'm saying is that we don't have enough evidence to declare either the darwinists or the creationists the winners in the debate.

LeRoy: You have a pretty worthless degree, then...like someone with a degree in geology who believes in the Great Flood, or someone with an astronomy degree who insists on a geocentric universe.

The Encyclopedia Britannica is pretty clear on where matters stand: "Evolution, or the common descent of all living organisms, is a fact as well-established as the facts that the Earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the Sun." The 72 Nobel laureates whose petition I ctied were also pretty clear on where matters stand on the scientific validity of evolution and on the idiocy of creationism.

Say.....you're not claiming to be smarterer than all them 72 Noble Lariat fellers, are you?

Redmanrt: Leroy has spent so much time in the dark democrat cave that his brain has become vestigial.

LeRoy: Ever since the time of Reagan, the Republican Party has been waging a war on science. [See The Republican War on Science, by Chris Mooney for ample documentation.]

Now there is a very good reason for being anti-Republican.

I guess, with science education in America being in the sad, sad state that it is in, having a degree in biology is no longer enough to understand that.

Like I said: Sad.