Sometimes I read articles from conservative publications simply because they tend to be more amenable to ID science than liberal publications (I’m not sure why that is necessarily). Today, I found an article that reads like a laundry list of complaints against evolution. Some are good complaints, some are not so good. For an example of the latter, the author doesn’t make a distinction between abiogenesis and evolution, and although evolutionists would gladly jump on any evidence for abiogenesis as supporting evolution, the case could be made the evolution can stand on its own, i.e. however life got here, evolution could be used to attempt to explain how it diversified into what we see today.
That’s not the point though. There is some good information in there, and I’ve pulled out a quote that I especially like.
Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed so that they can make other robots just like themselves from raw materials.
Now, imagine an alien visitor coming to the planet and, after many years of studying these robots, coming to the conclusion that since science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce there’s no reason to believe that there was an ultimate intelligent designer behind them.
The reason that I like this is because of the Darwinist propensity to argue that if we can scientifically explain how something happens, then ID is somehow disproven. I’ve had this argument on this very blog before. This wholly ignores what ID science is about as well as ignoring what Darwinists would like you to think evolution is about.
Explaining the physical mechanism behind some occurrence in terms of the base physical laws doesn’t prove evolution, nor does it defeat ID. In fact, we make inferences to ID because we do understand the processes involved in generating cells or performing cell processes. The interplay of the proteins along with the digital code inherent in DNA that plays out like a computer program are highly suggestive of something that is designed, not something that came about through blind chance and purposelessness. Darwinists would do well to remember this.