On Creationism

I came across an article by the "Centre for Intelligent Design' claiming they are not creationists. Yeah, right. I wonder how many of them believe God created mankind as is... (see this web site ) http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=210:intelligent-design-is-definitely-not-creationism&catid=42:rnr-articles Anyway, the article cites evidence for intelligent design, so I thought it would be fun to see what these guys count as evidence. But it’s when we look into the mind-boggling complexity of the living cell that the evidence of design becomes most apparent.  And it’s not just the chemical complexity which is breathtaking.  It’s the vast information content of DNA which poses the enduring problem of modern biology. What is the source of this functional, specified information?  ... All human experience suggests that such information arises only from intelligent mind.  To  propose that the information in DNA is a r...

This was inspired by the web page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science To help us understand that science has practical limits, it is useful to divide science into two different areas: operational science and historical (origins) science. Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites. Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation. Sure. It is useful to divide science into science we like and science that contradicts our personal interpretation of Genesis 1, then we can just pretend the latter is not real science. Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science. Because no one was there to witness the past (except God), we mu...