Thanks.

I have just now updated the link to http://nacaa.org.au/2008/ “about” on the end gives a Page Unknown error.

Regards,

David

Thanks for the writeup on NACAA 2008. Please note that the link to the 2008 pages has changed to http://nacaa.org.au/2008/about. Sorry about the change.

See in Canberra.

Steve.

Re: proof and evidence, the resilience of Science is rooted in a willingness to change worldviews when the evidence strongly suggests that it should. No theory is ever safe from being cast aside if sufficient evidence mounts against it.

Yes, true on your comments about vestigal organs. Vestigal organs, fossils, cosmology and other fields can all be used as evidences against “the notion of purposive creation”. I think you are saying that nothing is PROOF? But, they are evidence? I think all the evidence can also be used to support the position of creation.

Whats the difference between Creationism and ID… Intelligent Design are people that believe the evidence points to design. (Evidence within the cell, etc) And that the evidence, points against abiogenesis and evolution.Of course 99% of these people believe in God, but don’t use God, or creation in their arguments.
Creationists believe that God created. Some creationist such as myself believe that God created everything in 6 literal days. Others believe God created but possibly over long periods of time. Hope I’ve explained the difference between the 2 camps, although likely often the arguments are the same.
Money behind ID?? I’m not sure about that. I think the big money is grants and research money provided by government. The ID scientist don’t ususlly get those grants. Also, churches don’t ususally support ID because the creation/ evolution debate sometimes causes devicevnous.
Brett

I think the assertion that Darwin was “hardly right about anything” warrants some explanation.

I was not suggesting that vestigial organs are a proof of anything, but that they can be used in arguments against the viability of the notion of purposive creation.

Further to that last point, it’s not clear to me in what ways intelligent design and creationism are different, apart from the people and money behind ID.

Re: “Darwin was wrong”, fair enough, but you did say “Darwin was wrong say the researchers.” I was just trying to add more context.

Re: your comment “Darwin was wrong say the researchers”:

1. He couldn’t be right about everything.
2. Being incorrect about the appendix doesn’t invalidate the notion of vestigial organs as an argument against intelligent design.
3. That is not what the article said. Here is some of what that article did say:

“Darwin simply didn’t have access to the information we have,” explains Parker. “If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution.”

He also was not aware that appendicitis, or inflammation of the appendix, is not due to a faulty appendix, but rather due to cultural changes associated with industrialized society and improved sanitation. “Those changes left our immune systems with too little work and too much time their hands – a recipe for trouble,” says Parker.

That notion wasn’t proposed until the early 1900’s, and “we didn’t really have a good understanding of that principle until the mid 1980’s,” Parker said. “Even more importantly, Darwin had no way of knowing that the function of the appendix could be rendered obsolete by cultural changes that included widespread use of sewer systems and clean drinking water.”