Originally posted by OrthoFixation
Since "missing links" are present in the evolutionary chain and certain characteristics cannot be scientifically explained, why is it so difficult to grasp intelligent design?
With the complexity of life, the immense number of combinations found in the double helix, what makes everyone think we just stumbled on this combination out of trillions possible?
Liberals typically feel that abortion is OK too. I dare you to look at a fetus older than 2 weeks and tell me that it is not a living creature. It may not survive on its own at 2 weeks, but it is certainly no mole either.
I will consder your separate paragraphs to be your points 1,2, and 3. I will address them indivisually.
Point 1: What characteristics cannot be scientifically explained? The popular challenge put forth by creationists is the eye, but even that is explained pretty thoroughly by evolution. By "missing links" I assume you mean in the human evolutionary chain, and to be perfectly honest those are very small, and there is only one "missing link" that actually occurred at an important evolutionary point. And even at that point, we have a fossil record, just no complete skeletons.
Point 2: We reached this combination through extensive trial and error. As did the other millions of species in the world. And as did all the billions of genetic individuals within those millions of species (and millions of extinct species), all based on the double helix. After billions of years, with mutations or recombinations occurring at nearly every mating or division, why is it so hard to understand why we are just one functioning result of countless changes in the genome?
Point 3: Do your research. Look at a fetus at even 5 weeks or so. It is phenotypically identical to any mammal at that point, and not too far off from a fish. Your lack of knowledge of developmental biology is astounding for someone who is trying to sound like you are spouting off legitimate facts in this matter. In fact, I strongly suggest you try taking a developmental bio course at some point. It may lead you to very interesting information that will do some serious damage to your intelligent design idea.
There was some creationist literature that published a list of scientists who believed in intelligent design, in order to make their stance seem legitimate in the scientific world. A group of biologists, angry at that, published an equally long list of scientists named Stephen who believed in evolution, in honor of Stephen J. Gould. I hardly think that belief in evolution is due to some brainwashing of many of the most intelligent people on the planet. It comes from knowledge of the facts, and all the facts point toward evolution being the correct idea.
