There Is No Publication In The Scientific

The Strong Appearance Of Design [in Nature] Allows A Disarmingly Simple Argument: If It Looks, Walks And Quacks Like A Duck, Then, Absent Compelling Evidence To The Contrary, We Have Warrant To Conclude It's A Duck. Design Should Not Be Overlooked Simply Because It's So Obvious.

Under My Definition, A Scientific Theory Is A Proposed Explanation Which Focuses Or Points To Physical, Observable Data And Logical Inferences. There Are Many Things Throughout The History Of Science Which We Now Think To Be Incorrect Which Nonetheless Would Fit That Which Would Fit That Definition. Yes, Astrology Is In Fact One.

In The Abstract, It Might Be Tempting To Imagine That Irreducible Complexity Simply Requires Multiple Simultaneous Mutations - That Evolution Might Be Far Chancier Than We Thought, But Still Possible. Such An Appeal To Brute Luck Can Never Be Refuted... Luck Is Metaphysical Speculation; Scientific Explanations Invoke Causes.

The First Point One Has To Get Straight In Discussions Like This, Is That Id Is Not The Opposite Of Evolution. Rather, It Is The Opposite Of Darwinism, Which Says Life Evolved By An Utterly Unguided, Undirected Mechanism. If God Directed The Process Of Evolution, Or Rigged The Universe To Produce Complex Life, Then That Is Not Darwinism - It Is Intelligent Design.

In Private Many Scientists Admit That Science Has No Explanation For The Beginning Of Life... Darwin Never Imagined The Exquisitely Profound Complexity That Exists Even At The Most Basic Levels Of Life.