RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

  Topic: Intelligent Design folks donít need the shot< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 6
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2006,14:59   

Look Out! Lay person on

I have not studied genetics or any other field of science but I have a question to you all. †Picture me as the average Canadian guy with no formal scientific knowledge. I was brought up believing in evolutionary theory but without sufficient knowledge to argue the merits. Iíve tried to grasp the science of macroevolution by going over 1/3 of the pages within:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
(Excellent source of information.)

Iím sure I will read it over and over again throughout the next couple of years until I get a good working lay knowledge of evolution on the genetic level.

Why Iím bothering you good folks.
Iíve read articles on the avian flu which all use the word evolution several times. Some of the articles include ridicule of Intelligent Design folk that if it becomes necessary, needing to make a decision on whether or not to take the flu shot, when one exists.

What is within I.D. theory that would generate this point of ridicule?
What would go against the I.D. grain if H5N1 mutates into a human to human transmitable decease? Heck. I hardly know how to pose the question so in lay terms please. ;)

I made a comment on a community forum that is all messed up and I would like to clean the mess up in order to properly inform those that would read the post.

I'm looking at it from the point of view of genetic research.
I.D. and special creation can't hope to get a clear view of what is happening in order to be of much use. Evolutionary science is and has already done much of what will be needed to find a cure if it does get out of hand.
This flu is somewhat unique that it carries its own proteins and is also adaptive randomly which doesn't follow design theory. The only other virus that carried it's own protein was the flu of 1918. Proteins are necessary for cellular development and maintenance. It has all that it needs to be considered a parasite since it has cell structure.

If a human gets it while also afflicted by another strain of flu, the species barrier can be breached and will allow for human to human transmission due to the combination of the 2 flu's random ability to survive by incorporating the other flu into it's DNA structure. At this point, the avian flu will successfully show transitional mutation. This is against I.D. theory.

So, once human to human transmission is proved, will creationists or I.D. proponents take the flu shot or stand by their belief system science that believes this to be impossible?
Full text of the thread can be found on the 2 pages starting here. I'm Beemer in the thread. How or can this be fixed?

Some background of what Iíve been reading about for the last 2 weeks:
Irreducible complexity which I feel is phylosophy
Specified complexity by Dembski which I figure, from what I read here on the Pandaís Thumb is nothing but bad math. ( Although I couldnít follow the math in question. ;) )
Iíve found nothing but slant on Discovery Institutes articles with nothing much to add to real science when presenting evolution. They pose a lot of questions but do little to answer them.
Iíve found I canít find peer-review publications of any I.D. claims.
I.D. offers nothing that I can find digestable.
Iíve read a lot of the database here on Pandaís Thumb and will continue to read for a long time yet.

You know the old adage, ďBetter to have others think you stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.Ē I blew it big timeÖ.lol

So. Can anyone help me untangle my misconceptions? I would like to go back to the boards where I originally posted and correct my information as I donít feel I did the case for evolution any favours with what I posted there, so far.


Posts: 6
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,14:15   

I think I was looking to hard.

The simple answer is that I.D. thinks evolutionary science is bad science.

  1 replies since April 19 2006,14:59 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]