Intelligent Design is NOT the same as Creationism

[suchandra]

This makes sense, we have to create more camps, the "Intelligent Design movement" is NOT the same thing as "Creationism movement", Mr. Streetprophet explains the truth:

 

Intelligent Design is NOT the same as Creationism

 

by Mister Streetprophet

 

Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:36:13 AM PDT

 

Let's get one thing straight once and for all. Intelligent Design is NOT the same thing as Creationism! To clarify this I'm going to define Creationism. A Creationist is a person who believes that the Book of Genesis is literally true...that the world was created in 7 days(around 4004BC), that Adam was created out of dirt by God's breath and the Eve was created out of one of Adam's ribs...LITERALLY!!

 

 

I am NOT a Creationist. For most of my adult life I was a r to Random Evolution, even during those periods of time when I believed in God. To label all supporters of Intelligent Design as Creationists is like labeling all Random Evolutionists as Atheists. All Atheists must be Random Evolutionists but all Random Evolutionists don't have to be Atheists and similarly all Intelligent Designers don't have to be Creationists! It's perfectly feasible for an intelligent, open-minded person to look at the SCIENTIFIC evidence and come to the conclusion that Random Evolution could not possibly explain what biology and genetics have turned up. Let me give you three examples that seem very convincing to me.

One. In order for our brains to perceive what our eyes 'see', there has to be a complex series of chemical reactions. 40 in all and all 40 have to be present or the brain won't 'see' anything. There is no mechanism in Random Evolution (RE) that can explain how all 40 chemical reactions suddenly came into existence at the same time. Since anything less than all 40 being present means no sight, then there's no advantage to only having 1 or 2 or 39 chemical reactions and if there's no advantage then there's no reason why offspring with these chemical reactions should remain in the gene pool to pass their genes on. That's what RE claims is required...only genes that give it's host an advantage are likely to be passed on to the wider gene pool. So how did eyes evolve with that kind of complexity?

Two. Apes have 48 chromosomes and Humans have 46. What happened there? Well, it appears that two smaller chromosomes suddenly, for no explicable reason, hooked up with each other like two railroad cars and they've been together ever since. That's what RE says. ID says 'wait a minute, is it really that simple?' When you take a very close look at the surviving gene in Humans, you see that yes there is one part that resembles an Ape gene and another part that resembles another Ape gene but there's also a piece of genetic material in the center, that doesn't correspond to any Ape gene at all. Somehow, two ape genes happened to touch and hook up to a third piece of genetic material, AT THE SAME TIME, IN THE SAME CELL! Chromosomes merging is so rare that as far as we know, it's never happened since so what are the chances that the only time it happend, it happened twice at exactly the same time?

 

 

Three. Still on the topic of # of chomosomes in apes and humans. Ever wonder why cats and dogs can't interbred? It's because they have different # of chromosomes. Therefore it's virtually certain that an Ape egg can't be fertilized by a human sperm cell and a human egg can't be fertilized by an ape sperm cell. SO...if that's the case, how did the first 46 chromosome child(mutation) of a pair of 48 chromosome ape parents manage to have further offspring if that single 46 chromosome individual was surrounded by 48 chromosome apes? With no other 46 chromosome individuals around to mate with, the first 46 chromosome individual should have died without passing it's genes on to anyone. I have yet to hear or read a logical answer to this question by an Evolutionist expert.

Intelligent Design advocates look at scientific facts. Something which Random Evolutionists tend to ingore.