Silk
There is no way to reduce the "irreducible" complexity of blood clotting without fairly heavy duty biochemistry. This is not leaking jargon.
Indeed.
The ToE explains, with reference to observable evidence, why life is diverse and how it got to where it is. It does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of any deity.
That many, if not all, creation myths are inconsistent with the same observable evidence that supports the ToE is also outwith the scope of the ToE. Disproving the ToE need not give any more credence to any creation myth.
Whilst there are undoubtedly vested interests within the scientific community there is no better way for advancement than to burst a bubble.
If you would look at the evidence rather than dismissing it as either simplistic or impenetrable jargon you'd see that it is *very* compelling.
Every time the ToE has suggested the existence of a necessary mechanism that mechanism has been found - genes, DNA, etc.
Why should I "accept" the existence of a creator for which there is *no* evidence when there is such compelling evidence for the ability of science to explain the Universe?
You only need to accept the scientific method for everything to fall neatly into place. :)
No.
Natural selection was postulated long before there was any known biochemical mechanism by which it could operate even though there was much macroscopic evidence in its support. The search for a biochemical mechanism led to the discovery of DNA, whose chemistry strengthens the ToE which suggested that something like DNA *must* exist.
Creation explains nothing, it just sidesteps the question.
A
