” I assume by this rather enigmatic comment that you mean that neither Creation nor Evolution are entirely the result of either design or chance, that either process may contain elements of both (design and chance, that is).”

This was not what I intended. I suggested that another ‘chance-based’ theory could easily replace evolution, should it be disproven. Again, this doesn’t seem likely.

At its heart, this issue is largely unrelated to the article anyway. The Creation/Evolution debate is used as an example and it is not my goal to be an authoritative source on the matter. I will leave that to Evolutionary Biologists. As I have said, though, if you are interested in pursuing this dialogue further with somebody with more extensive knowledge in the area, please leave a melange of your previous two comments at the Young Australian Skeptics article of the same name.

http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/03/attack-arguments-waste-of-time/

In my previous reply, I stated that there are ONLY 2 possible explanations for the origin of the world, and of life. You disagreed with me, with qualification. First of all, although you agreed that ‘chance and design’ might be the only alternatives (you added that you weren’t absolutely sure about this) you argued that “these are not immediately Creation and Evolution.” I assume by this rather enigmatic comment that you mean that neither Creation nor Evolution are entirely the result of either design or chance, that either process may contain elements of both (design and chance, that is). You are wrong about this. The foundation of Creation is definitely design; there is no chance involved in this process (some people believe that the Creator initiated the process and then left things up to chance, but this is not the position of true creationists and is, in any event, a peripheral argument). On the other hand, the foundation of Evolution is chance; there is no design in this process (seriously, what evolutionist literature ever credits a Creator, or Designer, in the evolutionary process?). The very heart of the evolutionary process is random, natural events; its entire purpose is to explain how the world came into being without any involvement from the supernatural.

Recognizing that chance and design are the only alternatives for origins, some evolutionists believe in panspermia, the idea that life on earth was ‘seeded’ from life on another planet. This simply begs the question: how did that life come into existence? And once again, the only alternatives are design or chance.

You also say that “the process of natural selection … is not one [you] would call chance based.” Limiting the process of NS that you are referring to to that involved in macroevolution .. as opposed to microevolution (the process which creates varieties of creatures within kinds, which creationists completely acknowledge) NS certainly is based upon chance. In order for a creature to evolve into a completely different one – an undeniable requirement of the TOE – a mutation must cause a change in the genetic structure of the creature, in the DNA, that causes an entirely new feature in the creature’s structure. Natural Selection has nothing to act upon without such changes. The question, then, is this change the result of design or chance? Evolutionists would invariably argue that this change was the result of a random mutation, or genetic shift – of a chance event, in other words. Their theory absolutely demands it. Therefore, the foundation of NS is chance.

So, then, Daniel, there are indeed ONLY TWO alternatives for the origin of the world, and of life: chance and design. This is the TRUTH that I hope you recognize. And since this is true, the indisputable corollary is that evidence against evolution does indeed strengthen the case for creation – because there is no other option.

Finally, I would be more than happy to provide you with evidence for creation – and there is a great deal of it – but if you do not recognize the fundamental truth that I have explained to you here … that there are only 2 possibilities for origins, chance and design, and creation and evolution represent them … there is no point in continuing this dialogue. It would be a waste of our time.

Again, I disagree that there are only two alternatives. While it would certainly give grounds for reconsidering Creation, disproving evolution would not strengthen Creation’s position in any substantial way.

I am genuinely interested to see the evidence for creation that you speak of, please provide a citation and I’ll be sure to check it out.

I’m hoping to have this article published on the Young Australian Skeptics website. When that happens, if you’d care to re-assert your concerns there, I’m sure Jack Scanlan would be able to clarify this point more capably than I.