The fundamental (sorry) problem with the creationist/intelligent design view is its narrowness, neatly personified in Dan S de Merengue.

Every objection to evolution theory carries as its seed the same essential ingredient: if it cannot be easily and completely explained, then God must have done it. This is, at its base, the laziest form of thinking.

He also asks:

>>why an article void of religious content has inspired a religious discussion. Why is that unless Darwin truly is filling a religious need and touching that part of our core being?<<

The reason is simply that Darwin's views, from the time they were published in the middle of the nineteenth century, threatened the cosy self-fulfilling theories of traditional theism - that everything was God's direct creation, fulfilling some kind of godly purpose. This has not altered through the ages, with each successive generation of theists fighting an ever-less-convincing rearguard action.

"Darwinism" isn't really about evolution theory, it is about the freedom to think outside the strictures imposed by religious thought. Galileo fought the same battle, but lost, simply because the church's emotional hold over the individual was still extremely strong at that time in history.

The hollowness of the Dan S de Merengue school of thought is clearest when he makes this type of challenge:

>>So do we rest in the faith that another scientist will one day in the future uncover something? Or do we admit the possibility that Darwin’s reign might be approaching its end?<<

We can, of course, do both, without in any way dishonouring the achievements of Darwin, or falling into the "God musta dun it" form of cop-out thinking.

People who continue to question the completeness of existing theories will continually uncover something new. No-one, including the man himself, has ever suggested that Darwin found the complete answer to life, the universe and everything.

He simply made a massive contribution to science, and at the same time underlined the value of keeping an open mind. If that continues to upset the blinkered theist, so be it.

Dan,

Your comment "You admit that you can’t offer any thermodynamic mechanism of molecular transition."

Is a prime example of the pseudo science claptrap that the creationists spout. There is no "thermodynamic mechanism" There are merely complex chemical reactions that occur and have to meet the thermodynamic laws.

Billions of eyes come into being every day through these reactions and are subject to the same restrictions that the first pre-eyes and eyes were.

Another peachy example of pseudo scientific drivel "Rather, the functional eye was the result of numerous, successive, slight modifications. Did the process create something new that wasn’t there before? Yes, apparently it created something as complex as an eye. So I think we’ll have to conclude that undirected matter has been afforded creative tendencies." What absolute cr*p.

Miniscule improvements over time is also called evolution, and there is no requirement for matter to be afforded creative tendencies.

Bravo for showing us all how science and religion don't mix.

Shadow Minister wrote:

"Bravo for showing us all how science and religion don't mix."

The above was addressed to Dan de Merengue. I think it unfair to put Dan as representing all religion. One can be religious and not use the Bible as a scientific treatise as Dan does. I am an atheist. However, most religious people I know would not deny scientific discoveries on the basis that those discoveries contradict the Bible or other sacred books.

I need to clarify an item in my previous post.

The term "thermodynamic mechanism as used in chemisty/biochemistry" does not refer to an actual process but rather to the mathematical analysis done on the process. Because it is mathematical and involves number crunching, it is "mechanistic".

An equivalent example would the analysis of the movement of planets around the sun. A single planet's movement is simple and can be done by a high school student.

The addition of a second planet severely complicates the calculations, and by the time you get 8 planets incl larger asteroids, the process requires massive computational capability.
If you then for example throw in a couple of unknowns, such as a dark body, even the complex calculations would be erroneous.

Most papers written on Thermodynamic mechanistic analysis of chemical reactions are on very carefully controlled reactions (to limit the variables) where the process is very well understood, and even then the work involved takes teams weeks or months.

The process that Dan is alluding to has yet to be accurately defined, and as such saying that as a detailed mathematical analysis is not yet available, therefore it is not possible is ridiculous in the extreme.

Here is an interesting quote on the topic being discussed by a scientist, Dr. S. Lovtrup, professor of Zoophysiology, University of Umea, Sweden. He says: "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology. I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"

His is not an isolated case. Here is what Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic Chemistry, Moscow State University and member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences has to say: "The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems."

In yet another case Dr. David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC) says as follows: “Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.”

Well, that's three scientists who think that Darwinism is not all it's cracked up to be. But there are many more. You can see the long list here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

A couple more quotes by scientists.

Dr. Russell Carlson, Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology at University of Georgia: "To limit teaching to only one idea is a disservice to students because it is unnecessarily restrictive, dishonest, and intellectually myopic."

Dr. Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist, and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico: "I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma. Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all. Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosophy, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as George Bernard Shaw used to say."