(February 19, 2016 at 3:12 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: So far the argument boils down to "yeah but it can't be evolution" (argument from incredulity) or "it must be designed" (fallacy of proof by assertion).
Asking "why don't people automatically assume it's a creator" is one of the weirdest ways of arguing against evolution I've ever come across.
Someone let me know if you get answers to your questions that aren't fallacious please and I'll check back in.
I hope I never said it must be designed. I just think that it is the most logical and explanatory cause that has been offered yet. An intelligent being could certainly lead to the structures and intricate mechanisms we see in the cells. There is no debate that this could happen. There is however debate about if naturalistic causes are sufficient. And even if we tried to replicate one in the lab, that would just show us which ones could happen, not necessarily which ones did. This is why empirical science won't do for any theory attempting to explain a historical event.
