Intelligent Design vs. Randomness
Creationists couldn't possibly have their biology wrong, it came straight out of the Bible.
Both atheists in science and creationists in religion are promoting religious beliefs as science. Atheists in science claim Darwin negated intelligent design in biology, because randomness is an element of evolution. Wrong. Scientists cannot measure or define randomness well enough to determine whether intelligent design exists in biology.
Creationists ran aground with their original arguments; so they are switching tactics. They are now arguing "intelligent design" while pretending to separate themselves from their earlier arguments.
Their biggest problem is that the courts emphatically stated, many times, that creationism is religion, not science; and therefore it must be kept out of science classes in the schools.
Another problem, which is less visible, is that creationists had to admit that so-called micro evolution exists, since they cannot deny that diseases evolve before their eyes, and domesticated animals and plants evolved.
Therefore, creationists now try to separate themselves from their earlier arguments, going so far as to deny they are creationists in court, while they are the same persons, using the same literature and promoting the same cause of getting God into the science classes.
Creationists are promoting intelligent design as if it has become a legitimate part of science, which is not quite true, but close enough to get some suckers, inside of science and out, to believe it. Sure, a scientists should be able to see intelligent design in nature; but seeing it there and measuring it are two different things.
Interpretation, judgment, common sense and rationality are personal and subjective qualities which vary from person to person. Religion tries to direct such qualities. Science tries to measure questions in such a way that the result is independent of subjective qualities.
What this means is that, in science, it isn't a question of whether a creator should be visible in the complexities, it's a question of making objective measurements to show it. Believe it or not, this is the number one challenge of everything in sciencefinding a way to measure what appears to be obvious. When scientists can't measure it, there is no justification for teaching it in science classes in the schools.
Then creationists go even farther and claim intelligent design should replace evolution. The mismatch is grotesque. Intelligent design sits at the periphery of science, while evolution is at the core of biology. In order to get the substitution to work, evolution is being portrayed as imagination or belief rather than real science.
Intelligent design is so peripheral to biology that it is almost a nonsubject. The tools of biology don't quite reach into that area. It's good to extend the boundaries of science as much as possible, but the results are extremely hazy when factors outside matter enter in. This includes psychology and religion. If intelligent design can be detected in science, it's an extreme stretch.
Intelligent design needs to be studied in religion, but adding it to biology is the problem. Creationists are muddling the purpose of science by trying to add intelligent design to it. Science is a method. It involves objective measurements for evidence; and this is largely limited to material phenomena due to the vagaries of nonmaterial phenomena.
But creationists want to teach intelligent design in science classes and at the high school level, which is absurd. The motive is clear in the corollary, which is that intelligent design supposedly replaces evolution. That claim is not valid. It assumes an intelligent designer would not design evolution.
While creationists found that they cannot deny the existence of micro evolution, they claim "macro evolution" does not exist as major branch points which extent back some distance in time. If micro evolution exits, then the intelligent designer is not above creating evolution. There is no real difference in biology between micro and macro evolution. The supposed micro evolution becomes macro evolution as it extends over time. The mechanisms are the same at all levels.
One of the major falsehoods of creationism, which is included with the intelligent design argument, is that evolution is not a real part of science but a synthesis. To strip evolution out of science, it is referred to as "Darwinism." Darwinism could be anything. Darwin's errors and beliefs are brought up as the proof that evolution is a corruption. The ungodly fraud of it is the claim that Darwin's errors and beliefs create the subject of evolution. The subject of evolution is created by every study in biology. Evolution is the time and change element of every bit of information in biology. There is nothing in biology which can be separated from it's context of evolution.
I'm an evolution biologist studying the morel mushroom. The morel is a lesson in evolution unlike any other species, because it evolved from a single celled yeast into a multicelled organism a few thousand years ago and is still in a transitional state. The morel revealed a new process which I call "phenotypic variation." This process shows where intelligent design leaves off and randomness begins.
First, to describe phenotypic variation, it shows up as variations between individuals in dramatic and unexpected ways. With the morel, the shapes, colors and tissue thickness are very dramatically different for individual mushrooms growing near each other. These mushrooms obviously have the same genetic makeup while they look different. The differences are phenotypic but not genotypic. Phenotype is appearance, and genotype is genetic makeup as coded in the DNA.
Phenotypic differences can occur without genotypic variation, because not all genes are used. Picking the ones which are used results in variations in appearance or phenotype. This is how cells differ in the human body. Each cell has the same genetic makeup, while they show a variety of characteristics in different tissues. Each tissue is a phenotypic variation.
What was not known in the past is that individuals vary phenotypically, just as cells in the body do. Once this concept is known, it can be observed in a wide variety of plants and animals, which shows that it is a part of all biology.
The existence of this phenomenon shows the difference between randomness in biology and intelligent design. Phenotypic variation has a purpose. Atheists in biology lambaste anyone who uses the word purpose, because supposedly there can be no purposes without intelligence. But look at the dictionary. It's appropriate to use the word purpose for inanimate objects. The purpose of a carburetor is to distribute fuel.
The purpose of phenotypic variation is to cope with environmental variations. If the morel is in an environment which has a brown background, it needs to be brown to prevent deer from seeing it and eating it. If the background is black, it needs to be black. But the backgrounds vary. So what color should the morel be? Nature says, make a variety of colors, so some survive, if others get eaten. Evolution which produces permanent (or long term) change won't do this, because it would produce all one color, if there were no phenotypic variations.
This process of phenotypic variation shows that there is a high degree of randomness in the adaptations which are used in biology to cope with environmental problems. If an intelligent designer decided which colors to use for the morel mushroom, they would all be best suited for their environment. But due to randomness, some morels are brown in a black background. An intelligent designer does not remove the randomness.
This randomness is what biologists study as a major part of evolution. Creationists assume there is no randomness, because the Bible says The Creator designed biology. They can only make such a stupid assumption because they don't study biology, and they know nothing of the mechanisms involved.
What this all adds up to is the fact that there is a high degree of randomness in biology and evolution, regardless of whether there is an intelligent designer. Biologists study that randomness and acquire infinite evidence for it. Whether or not a creator designed biology, he didn't remove the random effects. Creationists don't know this, because they don't study biology.
Geology: Are there Planets out there Like Earth?
Almost every day in the science news, there is something about new planets being found around other stars, and supposedly there is a good chance that many are like the planet earth. Such a claim would be stupidity beyond belief; but the motives of atheists are more sin than ignorance.
If the earth's surface were less than 71% oceans, there would not be enough rainfall. If the earth's surface were more than 71% oceans, there would be too much rainfall plus other problems.
One of the other problems is that water absorbs CO2. If the oceans were fresh water, they would absorb almost all of the CO2 from the air and leave too little for plants to grow on. Since the oceans are high in salt, they release enough CO2 into the atmosphere for plants to grow on, but only about one third as much as would be optimum. If the oceans had more salt in them, fish would not easily tolerate so much salt.
If oceans were warmer, they would release more CO2 and water vapor for precipitation, which is occurring now due to global warming (which humans are not causing). During the dinosaur years, oceans were warmer, and there was about five times as much CO2 in the air.
Isn't it a stroke of luck that the oceans are just the right size, with the right amount of salt in them and the right temperature for modern biology? There aren't going to be very many such strokes of luck out there doing what planet earth does?
Of course the result is intelligent design, but determining that fact is not something science does or should be expected to do. However, determining the low probability of another planet meeting the biological requirements as earth does is something that should be expected of any scientist. To claim that any planet with a mass similar to that of earth might be biologically similar to earth is absurd.