Topic: Evolution
Quote: Well I can't agree to that, the 'evidence' for ID was all over the place before Darwin came up with a naturalistic solution.\nEvidence sufficient for proof does not exist but inferential evidence does exist anytime you observe biology.\nI made a point a while ago about semantics, it was countered as a point mattering to evolution by pointing out it was just semantics which I quite agree with.\nThe point still stands that people can hardly speak about biology without using words like 'designed for' and 'because' implying purpose.\nYou don't hear things like that about geology and chemistry for a reason, they are not complex functioning systems which fulfill a purpose.\nThe surprising part would be if systems fulfill a purpose without being formed by purpose.
Response: Darwin spent 20 years after his voyage on the Beagle piling on the evidence for his theory and developing it further before the first Origin publication. He took hundreds of samples of birds from different parts of the world as evidence. He was an avid insect collector - he used those to support his theory. He conducted experiments in his greenhouse. Fossils displayed at the London Natural History Museum were used as evidence for his theory. THAT is how one collects evidence for a theory, not by just inferring that animals and plants are here, so they must have had a designer. There has not been a single piece of evidence for ID that I am aware of - from what I\'ve seen, supporters of ID merely attempt to debunk Darwin\'s theory - hardly evidence.\nID advocates use the eye as evidence for something that\'s so complex that it couldn\'t have evolved. In fact, we have a very good idea of how the eye evolved, we can not only see it happen among fetus\', but there are plenty of animals alive today that have inferior or primative eyes. Again, this is not evidence for ID, saying \'The eye is complicated, God must have done it".\nHave you ever read the first edition of Origin of Species? It\'s completely semantic free. You dont even need to know anything about science or biology to understand it.\nAnd I rarely hear evolutionists use terms like "designed for". It\'s much more terms such as "evolved for" or "adapted to fit". But even so, nature has blindly designed organisms to better suit their environment, so terminology in this case matters not.
1.0