Okee dokee.... sigh. Well, to start off, I am convinced Creation/ID is correct, atleast in premise. Of course, if it is science, it's going to have quite a few holes, but hey, that's science. Now, you said, don't try to disprove Evolution, try to prove ID. You'll note that my sister just asked, "What would you consider proof?" which I think is a very important question... one I won't be surprised if you can't answer. I'm not sure I would be able to, or anyone will be able to. There is a reason for this.
I am very interested in science (hehe, two creation-believing science-interested sisters... we love science!! For myself, I love physics, astronomy, biology, linguistics (!!), psychology, neuro-related stuff, etc.) But when my sister was talking about your question just five minutes ago, I was struck with something my biology professor stressed last year in college. She stressed it repeatedly. I don't know if it adds any credibility in your mind, but I go to a very secular college where they most definitely don't believe in ID or creation. Definitely evolution. Sooo, my evolutionist biology professor said this... repeatedly... and my (liberal) psychology professor probably said it too, now that I think about it. It was, quite simply;
"Science canNOT prove anything. All it can do is come up with hypothesis after hypothesis, disproving the ones that don't work, and honing in on the truth. ALL science can do is disprove things, it cannot prove anything."
And she was right, if you think about it. Take Einstein's theory of relativity, and Newton's theory of gravity. The first hypothesis was gravity, and it was proven to be somewhat wrong, so Einstein came and tweaked it all quite a lot (!!) and relativity has NOT been proven to be completely true, I even recently saw a article about some test results that suggested they need to tweak it even more. Science disproved the exact accuracy of Newton's theory, but never could PROVE the accuracy of Einstein. Either relativity will continue to work, or it will be proven not quite accurate as well, and they will have to tweak the theories again.
See, quite literally, neither Evolution (spontaneous-generation/pondsc... evolution)(not Natural Selection, which ANY creationist will agree is a FACT), nor ID, nor Creationism can be proven. Not one of them can be. All of them could possibly be disproven. But Science does not prove. It disproves and gradually gets closer and closer to the truth. Even if you happen upon the truth.... you can't prove it. You just can't disprove it. But even like Einstein's theories... there's that possibility that one day, a crazy unforeseen experiment result will show that it just isn't quite right, and you're going to have to tweak it.
So, for you to say, "Prove ID, but don't disprove SG Evolution (spontaneous generation)" is very unscientific. It is also unfair to those of us who would like to argue logically for ID. You ask the wrong question, and refuse to let us answer the possible-to-answer one. See? We CAN'T prove ID. Thing is, no one needs absolute proof to have good reason to believe something. I don't have proof that a stop-light really is red for the perpendicular road while it is green for me. I don't have proof until I get right into the intersection, at which point I've already placed faith in it. But even though I never had proof, I certainly had many good reasons to believe it would be safe. Evidence and reasons are all we have to base stuff on. Proof... well.... keep thinking about my sister's question, "what WOULD you consider to be proof?"
p.s. I think you speak English quite well. :)
· 1 decade ago