Creation Bits

This blog has been superceded, and is only here for archive purposes. The latest blog posts, depending on topic, can be found at one of the blogs at the new location!

These are very uneditted and underthought ideas that I get while debating the creation/evolution debate. This is the more-often-updated but less-thought-out version of the crevo blog.

Monday, November 14, 2005

Levels of Teleology

I developed a levelling of teleology in genomic change for a post I made in an debate with an evolutionist, which showed different kinds of genomic change and how much teleology is involved with each event.

Let's say I need a new gene. There are several possible ways that I could acquire this new gene:
  1. I have no idea I need something to change. If a cosmic ray or copying error causes something to change, and its beneficial, great. However, if the change is detrimental or doesn't fix my situation, I'm toast.

  2. I know I need something to change, but have NO IDEA what. Therefore, I can cause increased mutations to occur randomly throughout my genome, and hopefully something good happens before I suffer from error catastrophe.

  3. I know I need something to change, and I know it is this, specific gene. Therefore, I can put my resources to bear on changing this gene until I can sense that I am no longer in need.

  4. I know I need something to change, and I have this part list of things that I know works to make specific things happen. I'm going to rearrange re-usable parts until I get something working.

  5. I know I need something to change, I know what it is that needs changing, and I know exactly what I need to do to change it.

1 & 2 are Darwinism. 3-5 are ID and Creationism. Darwinists like to claim that 3-5 can be the result of 1 & 2. However, Dembski's No Free Lunch and Searching Large Spaces show why complex adaptations cannot occur through blind searches. Intelligence _must_ be put into the equation, or the blind search makes error catastrophe a certainty LONG before adaptations can occur, and Behe's paper covers just how unlikely that is anyway.

Darwinists claim that 3-5 can come from 1&2, yet they never show any data on how this could or does happen. I'm fairly certain it simply isn't possible.

Also note that my "levels of teleology" are just an example. I'm sure there's lots of things I missed in there, but the idea remains the same.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?