(January 14, 2016 at 7:56 am)Stimbo Wrote:(January 13, 2016 at 9:08 pm)AAA Wrote: Right, but they interpret the results through their worldview.
What does the fact that photolyase exists mean to you? it had a necessary function, therefore it arose over many chance events.
What does it mean to me? A designer built in a way for our bodies to protect their genome in spite of the energy rich UV waves from our environment.
Do you see how the same result is interpreted differently based on our presuppositions? Do you disagree with this phenomenon?
Okay, so how would you propose testing for this designer? Or are you more interested in confirming your presupposition as the conclusion than actually discovering truth?
Well considering that photolyase and other proteins arose due to non-repeatable chance events in evolutionary theory, and a non-repeatable creation event in design theory, we can't use typical laboratory science to test the competing models. We have to rely on the method of historical science outlined by Newton. When we try to test competing models we have to look at explanatory power of the options. We have to look at our experience of the origin of such structures. Do we know from experience that random mutations can lead a new specified sequence of characters? Do we know that intelligence can lead to new specified sequence of characters? The second one explains it better. Is it too religious to be science? maybe according to some people, but I think we should follow the evidence where it goes even if we don't like the philosophical implications.