Refuting The "Bad Design" Vs. Intelligent Design Argument - William Lane Craig

741 views

Uploaded on February 02, 2010 by TheWordisalive

In pointing out the flaw of the bad design argument, I would also like to point out that many materialists have always made many false presumptions in the face of unknown facts. This following site has a excellent, and fairly comprehensive, list of the consistent failed predictions of Darwinism.

Darwin’s Predictions - Cornelius Hunter
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

Along these lines, for many years materialists predicted much of human anatomy was vestigial. Yet once again, they were proven completely wrong in this prediction.

“The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.” "Tornado in a Junkyard" - book - by former atheist James Perloff

For a prime example of evolution's failed predictions of vestigial organs, recently in October 2007, the appendix has been found to have essential purpose in the human body:

Appendix has purpose:
Excerpt: "The appendix acts as a good safe house for bacteria," said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Scientists:_appendix_has_purpose

Moreover, the vestigial organ argument, like the "Junk DNA argument, is basically the "Bad Design" argument which is used by evolutionists. A argument that quickly leaves the field of empirical science and enters squarely into the field of Philosophical debate.

Refuting The Myth Of "Bad Design" vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg

Evolution vs The Eye - Miracle Or Mistake? - article
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMThmd25mdjRocQ

As well, the "predicted" plasticity of embryonic stem cells vs. adult stem cells, in curing diseases, is turning out to be a huge bust for the materialist.

Umbilical cord, & Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells:
So which is better: embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells? Thus far, embryonic stem cells can't currently treat any diseases, while adult stem cells have helped patients with 72 conditions. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

Who Needs Embryonic Stem Cells?
“New techniques circumvent a roadblock to the production of embryonic-stem-cell-like lines from adult tissue. Such reprogrammed cell lines should be much safer to use for therapy.”
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200905.htm#20090503a

Stem Cell News: Jan. 2010
Excerpt: Dr. Gregory Brent (UCLA) told an audience Saturday night that embryonic stem cells have yet to produce one treatment, while adult stem cells are currently treating millions.
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201001.htm#20100118a

Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis
http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/

Tags:
Intelligent Design, Molecular Biology, Logical Fallacy, Jesus Is Lord, Science & Tech
Comments on Refuting The "Bad Design" Vs. Intelligent Design Argument - William Lane Craig

RECOMMENDED CHANNELS