In response to my previous post, Darwin, Intellegent Design, and Ad Hominem, this question was asked:
Do YOU think there could be a third possibility...? Say, that God created a world that then took on some of the evolutionary developmental processes described by Darwinians? Or are you a strict Creationist?
I do think that there is a third possibility: aliens. However, this doesn't solve the problem of the origin of life. Interestingly enough, Richard Dawkins admits to believing this (in the movie Expelled though doubts have been raised as to the accuracy of the quotations in the movie) Regardless of who believes that aliens seeded life, they still have to answer the question: who created the aliens? We've not made any progress with respect to the origin of life.
The idea of God creating the world, and then using evolutionary processes in order to create life is a method of God creating. The origin of life is the same: God. Rationally we have to give something the term of infinity: either God or Universe. Something always existed and caused us to exist. If God is infinite then he created the universe and us. If the universe is infinite then we created God.
To answer your second question, "...are you a strict Creationist?" I say yes. When evaluating the evidence that the scientific community has presented me for and against evolutionary biology, especially with respect to intelligent design, I easily and comfortably side with intelligent design, though they are both scientific theories. Just like, and closely tied with, the debate about the existence of God, both sides have evidences. It is my self-assigned duty to, until it can be shown with absolute certainty that X is truth, to evaluate as best we can what is true, be it X or otherwise and continue to do so with all new evidence presented.
Essentially the cornerstone of why I personally am a creationist is, as Dr. Lynn Margulis argues(1): "[...] new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired” and “Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation." Surprising enough, Dr. Margulis is not a proponent of Intelligent Design. Though I see some merit to the evolutionary process to which she subscribes, I don't agree with that either.
Its funny, I realize now that I didn't even touch on the Ad Hominem I intended to mention, but it fits here. The most compelling argument against Intelligent Design Creationism I have ever heard consisted of pointing out logical inconsistencies in the design of humans and offering "How could an intelligent being create something so badly designed?" Further, the discussion almost universally degrades into heated argument when somebody accuses the Intelligent Design scientist of being non-scientific by not starting with a foundation of Neo-Darwinian evolution. Not that their Ad Hominem attacks are what sways me against the argument but, in my experience, a discussion degrades to personal attacks when one or both sides sit on a foundation that has been cracked or broken. Besides that, I always wonder, whats my mom have to do with it?
1- Cited from http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1145 . Lynn Margulis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis . Apparently this quotation originated from a Science magazine article, which is currently footnoted as number 6 on Dr. Margulis wikipedia page.
