Just because someone knowledgeable and smart and well educated in the subject does not mean he is right.
I noticed your posts. Don't worry.
He knows no more about the origin of life than any other human on the planet at this point in time. It is just his OPINION he thinks DNA is a sign of god.
Yea. And I evaluate whether his opinion is reasonable. And it (Intelligent Design) is more reasonable than your concept.
NOBODY says evolution has anything to say about the origins of life. Evolution is all about what happens after life is formed.
Maybe they realized it was a losing proposition and decided that they better not push the process back that far.
Could be that in another 20 years some future sonhouse will write - "But nobody says evolution has anything to say about the one species gradually becoming another."
Of course RJ and his creationist buddies
Everybody has right to some friends.
use that as a weapon to try in their desperate way to make creationism real which will never happen in a million years because it is not true.
It is much more real than a total Naturalism.
How can you even trust your cognitive abilities to know what truth is ?
A total Naturalism is self defeating for all that is important with a total Naturalism is that you have your body in the right place in order to survive and pass on those traits to another generation.
If the antelope runs from the lion because it thinks its a game, purely naturalistic evolution doesn't care. As long as the antelope survives.
And if survival is the only thing a purely evolutionary process is selecting for then whether what humans know is the truth or not is completely beside the point. That was Darwin's own fear - How could he trust the brain of a monkey to arrive at what is true ?
If people want to ascribe the beginning of the universe to the work of a god, so be it. Nobody can scientifically argue against that and nobody would even TRY.
The anthropic principle strongly argues that the universe knew that we were going to arrive. And the fine tuning of many constants for the development of life strongly argue that the accident is too unlikely to not involve intelligent planning.
So says people who honestly consider the particular calibrated laws of physics at the creation event.
Way back in 1950, in his book The Nature of the Universe, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle also argued for accidental coincidence to explain the many unique but necessary properties of the universe and for our own planet. But the discoveries of the following thirty years dramatically changed his mind, as described in his book The Intelligent Universe. In 1983 he said,
"Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy coincidences. But there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them."
It is easy to understand why many scientists like Hoyle have changed their minds in recent years. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this amazing universe can't be explained as a series of happy coincidental accidents that were the result a thinking universe that knew we were coming.
From page 73 of "How to Know God Exists"
by Ray Comfort.
Fredric B. Burnham, a historian of science, said - "The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years."
[ From ABC's "Nightline" with Ted Koppel, April 24, 1992 ]