Why teaching creationism is a horrible idea.

reply to post by miriam0566


But thier is no evidence for your assumption. Where is your proof that all complex things are designed?

Also, your definition of evidence is week. We are talking about science here. Let me give you a definition of Scientific Research:


www.garyfeng.com...


Creationism doesn't use methods that alolow for testing or replication, almost all peer reviews (of scientists) discredit it, and you don't have research data.

Your two pieces of evidence are, life is complex so their must be a creator, but theres no proof complexity = creator, and this has no data behind it that is testable. The other proof is the bible tells of it, but the bible wasn't peer reviewed, sights no data, can't be retested, etc.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in science class because its not science.

reply to post by Grambler

do me a favour mate, don't assume you know what i'm talking about between the lines. dawkins is a muppet. he is slightly more logical than creationists, but not by much.

life as we know it, life on earth, is better explained by design than by evolution. outside of that, i didn't make any statement. classical evolution, that is life evolving in isolation on this planet, has been proven improbable by countless experiments. it is akin to putting cake mix in an oven and baking a motorbike. the nature of the designer, i don't have a clue, design itself seems likely and more probable than accident.

just to be clear here, i moved away from evolution, not creationism. i used to believe it, now it looks unlikely, if evidence shows otherwise, i'm happy to switch back.


and as regards the above post, the only criteria that evolution fulfils is peer review, therefore it isn't acceptable as scientific fact either.


[edit on 12-6-2008 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


First off, i have know idea what you mean by me trying to read between the lines with you. Please, do explain. Your post basically said that if you viewed the debate through the lens of Occam's Razor, creationism came out on top. I responded with a claim otherwise. I didn't mention your name, I didn't speak to your motive, and I spoke concisely and politely. I didn't attempt to read you.

As for the rest of your post. On Dawkins, care to answer the argument instead of ad homming? Then you claim countless experiments have disproven evolution. Can you show me them? I really would like to se them, I may not be a creationists, but if evidence proves to me evolution is incorrect, I'll gladly not follow it.

You then say that evolution only meets the peer review status. How doesn't it meet the testable methods portion, or the saving of data analysis, or the presenting with clarity? Obviously its testable if there are countless experiments proving it wrong, correct? Could you please explain what part of this is doesn't meet.

You know what else is great. We can actually have a good discussion about what experiments prove about evolution. But how many experiments have been run on creationism to debate. Oh, thats right. You can't test the claim, "well something had to create us".

Originally posted by Grambler

First off, i have know idea what you mean by me trying to read between the lines with you. Please, do explain. Your post basically said that if you viewed the debate through the lens of Occam's Razor, creationism came out on top. I responded with a claim otherwise. I didn't mention your name, I didn't speak to your motive, and I spoke concisely and politely. I didn't attempt to read you.

you are assuming that because i disagree with evolution i must be a creationist, i'm not, never said i was and don't agree with it. intelligent design wins out over evolution based on occams razor. i'm no more a creationist than you are. ID is not creationism. do you get it? stop calling me a creationist, you're lumping me in with people who believe god put fossils in rocks to fool us, calling me an idiot would insult me less.

As for the rest of your post. On Dawkins, care to answer the argument instead of ad homming?

dawkins argument is aimed towards creationists, it has nothing to do with me. my personal opinion of the man is he is a muppet, he is only slightly more logical than creationists. he is a fanatic. i will discuss this in due course.

Then you claim countless experiments have disproven evolution. Can you show me them? I really would like to se them, I may not be a creationists, but if evidence proves to me evolution is incorrect, I'll gladly not follow it.

again, i didn't say that, read only what i say, do not presume to read between the lines. countless experiments to recreate the beginning of life have failed, it is at a point where spontaneous evolution of life from chemical reaction seems highly unlikely to have happened given the conditions present, using very liberal parameters, at the place and time life is supposed to have happened, therefore, the most likely explanation is design.

You then say that evolution only meets the peer review status.

i'm ignoring some of what you said as i feel it is only relevant to where you think i stand, and you are mistaken on that. the evidence available suggests one of two options, equally at this point. occam's razor suggest i am most likely to be correct, therefore the only criteria evolution meets is peer review.

You know what else is great. We can actually have a good discussion about what experiments prove about evolution. But how many experiments have been run on creationism to debate. Oh, thats right. You can't test the claim, "well something had to create us".

i agree, there are good experiments regarding evolution, some great work that adds to the wisdom of man. we should discuss them, and what they might tell us about life, but that is not what this thread is about, start a new thread about any experiment you like and i'll be happy to discuss it, just please stop calling me a creationist.

again, my point is that neither creationism nor evolution are the best scientific solutions to the question of where life came from and how did we become what we are, so neither should be taught as fact in a science classroom "god created us" and "we evolved from chemicals" both seem equally unlikely at this point, "i don't know how it started" would be a better answer at this point than either of the above. if not one then why the other?

Originally posted by AveIMil


Oh you are so sadly misinformed.

There is no scientific evidence, (you know, evidence that adheres to the Scientific Method) to support design. None, nadda, ziltch! Do you even know what the word evidence means?

Evidence clearly points to evolution and the scientific community uniformly accepts evolution as fact, there is no controversy or debate among the vast majority of the scientific community. Even Christian scientists accept evolution; the fact that not all scientists are atheists is irrelevant.

Creationism or Intelligent Design is [SNIP]!

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Gemwolf]

The question of where life (and likely all the matter and energy in the Universe) originally came from will never be answered because none of us were there... Honestly both theories have the same logical inconsistency, that inanimate groupings of matter seem to have sprung spontaneously to life (whether by luck or act of some God), until we invent the time machine and go back to find out (not likely) the mystery will remain the question won't be answered. Even if life were created in a lab I wouldn't be convinced 100% of evolution because who's to say early Earth was anything like a lab or that the life they create has any likeness to the life on early earth...I don't think we'll ever know for sure, and its better that way, the mystery is good for us, it keeps life interesting and leaves the origins of the Universe and life open to personal interpretation, so believe what you want, science/religion will never prove anything

Originally posted by Grambler
reply to post by miriam0566

 

Your two pieces of evidence are, life is complex so their must be a creator, but theres no proof complexity = creator, and this has no data behind it that is testable. The other proof is the bible tells of it, but the bible wasn't peer reviewed, sights no data, can't be retested, etc.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in science class because its not science.

the proof of my assumption is observation. observation can be retested.

look at the universe, give me an example of a complex system that has different but cooperating parts with an equal or more amount of complexity to life. you will not find any.

nada, zip...

suns, comets, black holes, galaxies, asteroids, all are simple structures guided by physics. most have the form of spheres because that is the most logical form in a gravity well.

contrast that with life. you mean to tell me that the complexity of life doesnt even raise a red flag to you? the contrast of complexity to simplicity is night and day.

are there examples of complex objects that form at random without aid of design?

if there isnt, then it can be assumed that complexity is a sign of design.

is it an belief or an observation?

Originally posted by pieman

you are assuming that because i disagree with evolution i must be a creationist, i'm not, never said i was and don't agree with it. intelligent design wins out over evolution based on occams razor. i'm no more a creationist than you are. ID is not creationism. do you get it? stop calling me a creationist, you're lumping me in with people who believe god put fossils in rocks to fool us, calling me an idiot would insult me less.

Care to explain the difference between creationism and ID? The OP was about creationism, everyone on the board has been assuming the words are interchangeable, and even you in your original post use both words interchangeably.

From your post:
"unless evidence is found otherwise, or the circumstances are found to be reproducible, intelligent design is, in my opinion, the most scientifically acceptable theory.

so i agree, creationism shouldn't be taught outside of religious education, but equally, classical theories of evolution should be taught as the least likely of two strong possibilities."

I was using the word creationism to mean the world was created by something. To me ID means the same thing. At the very least you can see why I would used the word when that is what the thread is titled and that is a word you used. You say you don't believe in creationism. Not one thing in my post assumes you do. It is all an attempt to answer your claim the the theory life was created by something (call it what you will) would fit Occams Razor more than evolution. Again, I never assumed anything about what you believed. I only argued why the theory of creation was not better. Ironically, you accuse me of trying to read behind the lines, but that is exactly what your doing with me.

dawkins argument is aimed towards creationists, it has nothing to do with me. my personal opinion of the man is he is a muppet, he is only slightly more logical than creationists. he is a fanatic. i will discuss this in due course.

Ok, you attack the mans credibility with no evidence and don't refute his position.

again, i didn't say that, read only what i say, do not presume to read between the lines. countless experiments to recreate the beginning of life have failed, it is at a point where spontaneous evolution of life from chemical reaction seems highly unlikely to have happened given the conditions present, using very liberal parameters, at the place and time life is supposed to have happened, therefore, the most likely explanation is design.

you said: "classical evolution, that is life evolving in isolation on this planet, has been proven improbable by countless experiments." That seem closer to "experiments prove evolution doesn't work" than "experiments haven't been able to prove how life began". But whatever. If thats what you meant, my apologies. My answer would be that we could never teach any biology then, because no theory will ever be able be able to recreate life. Because you admit further down in you post that you agree evolutionary studies have been good and given us wisdom, why shouldn't it be taught.

Lastly, you say you won't answer my points on your claim that evolution does not meet my definition of scientific research, because I'm assuming things about you. No, I'm not. I literally just asked you to tell me why it doesn't. I honestly am trying to have an intellectual conversation to learn. You refuse to answer credible points by asserting they don't apply because I'm reading to much into it. Your original posts said you don't believe in creationism. Thats what I've been assuming as I've posted. I was just answer your point that it seemed more feasible. It honestly seem as if instead of taking the time to respond respectfully to me with well thought out answers, you are copping out and making blanket statements about what I am thinking. Lets just agree discuss which theory is better for Occams razor

reply to post by miriam0566


Thanks for having a good discussion with me. I see what the points are you are making, but heres my problem. How can I point to something and say its complex and not designed when you can just say God created it?

But fine, you assert that life is complex and should raise a flag. You say that stars, black holes, etc. would count. Well, if I could prove that one of these is more complex than some forms of life (you you admit is very complex), then that would be an example of something not designed that is complex.


www.nature.com...

This is a type of star that is considered very complex, perhaps more complex than simple forms of life such as single celled organisms. But even if you prove its not more complex, it still prove the problem in your claim that all things complexed are designed. What is the definition of complex. I think any reasonable person would consider this stars function complex, in fact I think would consider all stars complex. Regardless of whats more complex, if this star is considered complex, then it disproves your theory. But you clearly don't consider it complex. So its impossible for me to meet your challenge of show me something that is complex and not designed, because you DEFINE complexity by the fact that it was designed.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Well, the evidence for Creationism is more voluminous and much more ancient than the evidence for Evolution.

It's not evidence, and it's not voluminous. Ancient perhaps, but that has no bearing on it's veracity. Indeed, Evolution is known as the unifying theory of Biology - because it works so well with so many different fields of study, such as both Paleontology and Genetics, and YES - the data collaborates and compliments each other.

Virtually every independent culture in the history of our species has come up with unique and yet vaguely similar creation stories

Actually, they're quite different. The Greeks believed in polytheism - their elder gods such as Eros, Erebus, Gaia were born from the bird of the egg of a Giant bird called Nyx. They begat the Titans like Chronos, Rhea, Themis and Pheobe. They in turn begat Zeus, Hermes, and the other more well known gods. Each god representing different phenomena in Nature or aspect of humanity (war, love, revelry, etc). Man was created, by Zeus's decree, by a collaborative effort between Prometheus and Epimetheus

In contrast, the Egyptians believed that in the beginning there was Nun, the waters of Chaos. From Nun, came Re-Atum who either spit or masturbated into the waters giving birth to the other gods who created the features of the Earth. Mankind was created by Re-Atum's tears after reuniting Shu and Tefnut.

In Jainism, they believe that nothing created the Earth, and nothing will superceed it. It is an eternal and everlasting reality which undergoes cycles of destruction and rebirth.

Shintoism doesn't say much about the creation of the world, but rather the creation of Japan. Izanagi and the goddess Izanami dipped their spears into the waters to make an island of curdled Salt on which men, spirits, ancestors, and all of creation formed.

Brief Various Creation Myths

Part of the reason why we find so many parallels in some religions is because civilizations weren't completely sequestered from each other and traded myths, legends, and ideas about god. This is especially true about religions which arise in similar places and times. For instance, the Christian/Jewish/Muslim Genesis stories are all predated by Sumerian and Babylonian myths.

And you can also stretch this back further, since we all came from a similar location on Earth (Africa) and then spread - Early creation myths from our ancestors may have followed and influenced the beliefs of those who would later populate the world and their ancestors.

Why would isolated groups of primitive human beings all over the planet independently arrive at the conclusion that a higher power created the universe, our world, and our species?

Religion a byproduct of a larger brain?
"God Spot" in the Brain.
There is no God Spot?

If it is a natural function, then surely it represents a very, very important human phenomenon that should be researched extensively, rather than stifling our own curiosity and filing it under "superstition"

They are, they're just not coming up with answers that you like.

Evolutionists endorse teaching an incomplete work-in-progress as "scientific fact,"

Your computer is an "incomplete work-inprogress" as well. So is Gravity.

Odd how some people can accept the idea that the very fabric of space and time can curve and contort around objects, but they can't accept that little changes over LOOOOTS of time produce large changes.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


But, hold on... That's a cop-out. By that rationale, virtually anything can be taught in school as "fact," pending the acquisition of new knowledge.

If you completely bypass the required logic, reason, and evidence. Sure. Oh, wait, that's what creationists do. Not scientists.

When new data becomes available, we'll update the curricula. Yeah, right.

Paradigm Shift

Science has them, Religion doesn't. If religious dogma hasn't been incorporated into Science that's because it doesn't meet the basic requirements necessary to cause a paradigm shift in academic thinking.

Teaching that Evolution is right while Creationism is wrong is not an unbiased and objective approach to education — on the contrary, closing the door to alternative explanations and knowledge is the antithesis of education. It's thought control.

So... you advocate teaching blood letting, flat earth, alchemy, and phernology? We don't teach these things, or creationism, because they have been proven wrong. Creationism isn't some new idea, and it's not "forgotten wisdom". It had it's time in the sun, but it fell apart under it's own weight due to a lack of evidence and an inability to change it's views on the universe based on that evidence. Don't backpedal 200 (more actually, 1,000's, if you count the other sciences religion denies) years of scientific advancement, knowledge, and practical application just because YOU can't wrap your mind around a concept.

We KNOW Cranial Drills don't cure headaches because we KNOW Headaches are not caused by demons in the head trying to escape, therefore we DON'T use them anymore.

And here's the problem. Creationism cannot be taught in a science class because it contributes absolutely nothing to our knowledge of how the Universe works. Saying that "God Did It" is only replacing one unknown with another. Since "God" is unknown, you end up just spinning your wheels in philosophical and Theological musings which for over 4,000 years have gotten absolutely nothing accomplished. Except talk.

Even if Evolution weren't proven beyond a reasonable doubt (and it has been, in a court of law, by a judge appointed by "God's Warrior" George Bush himself - to say nothing of the testimony of the last three popes) - it would still have a far better place in our science classrooms because it at least provides a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life and a growth in the knowledge of mankind.

miriam

what if you dont know it something is manmade or not? what is the criteria you would use to determine if something was designed or not?

A good start would be figuring out if there was a plausible naturalistic explanation for it's existence. Snowflakes, on the other hand, are highly intricate structures and patterns which LOOK designed. We know that god does not craft each and every snowflake specially by hand because we understand the mechanisms behind water crystallization.

are there examples of complex objects that form at random without aid of design?

At random? No. But Evolution isn't a random problem. Indeed, it's a highly deterministic process. The only random element is mutation. So it is the nonrandom selection of random mutations. There's a number of simplistic computer models out there which you can run on your own computer to show the basic principals behind evolution. I can link you one if you like.

Also, you'd be surprised how complex gravity is.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Lasheic]

Originally posted by Titen-SxullThe question of where life (and likely all the matter and energy in the Universe) originally came from will never be answered because none of us were there...

Yeah, nice logic my not-so-intelligent fellow. Does this mean you cannot prove anything that occurred before your own birth, because you weren’t there? Does this mean science can’t explain what happened to the dinosaurs and how they lived, because we weren’t there?

Sure, we might never find the answers to certain questions, but I’m damn certain the question of how life originated, which has NOTHING to do with Evolution but abiogenesis, will be solved within 50 years.

Originally posted by Titen-SxullHonestly both theories have the same logical inconsistency, that inanimate groupings of matter seem to have sprung spontaneously to life (whether by luck or act of some God), until we invent the time machine and go back to find out (not likely) the mystery will remain the question won't be answered.

Hey again, I see your lack of understanding of evolution still shines through. Evolution does not deal with the origins of life, evolution explains, yeah, the evolution of life. It explains the diversity of life we see on Earth.

Check abiogenesis for a scientific understanding of the origins of life. It’s still very rough, though. But are you going to push God of the gaps?

Please show me a logical inconsistency in evolution, pretty please!

Originally posted by Titen-SxullEven if life were created in a lab I wouldn't be convinced 100% of evolution because who's to say early Earth was anything like a lab or that the life they create has any likeness to the life on early earth...

If they create a similar environment to the early Earth conditions and manage to produce life in a lab you still won’t accept it as a good explanation for the origins of life on Earth? Then what will you believe? You’ll continue having faith in your silly God?

Originally posted by Titen-SxullI don't think we'll ever know for sure, and its better that way, the mystery is good for us, it keeps life interesting and leaves the origins of the Universe and life open to personal interpretation, so believe what you want, science/religion will never prove anything

So what I gather from this is that life is only interesting if we don’t know about things? Basically every modern technological device you make use of has been invented because humans have a drive to understand and explain things in the natural world. Not because we impair our selves by simply giving up and saying “ah, we can’t really know or prove anything anyway, we might as well not to do jack shiat and wait to die”.

Originally posted by GramblerThis is a type of star that is considered very complex, perhaps more complex than simple forms of life such as single celled organisms. But even if you prove its not more complex, it still prove the problem in your claim that all things complexed are designed. What is the definition of complex. I think any reasonable person would consider this stars function complex, in fact I think would consider all stars complex. Regardless of whats more complex, if this star is considered complex, then it disproves your theory. But you clearly don't consider it complex. So its impossible for me to meet your challenge of show me something that is complex and not designed, because you DEFINE complexity by the fact that it was designed.

Nice post.

See, this kind of circular logic keep their silly little God safe from all scrutiny.

reply to post by miriam0566


Exactly so.

“It seems as though someone has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.” Paul Davies; famous cosmologist, quantum physicist & materialistic naturalist

As science began to unlock the secrets of the not so simple cell, it was found that even the way that the amino acids fit together to form proteins was sequence specific as was the shape of the proteins; which had to be precise in order to form the complex ‘lock and key’ fit they required to bond within the cell. The slightest imperfection of the shape of the protein and it would not function. Meaning that even the ‘building blocks’ of the cells themselves exhibited a quality known as “irreducible complexity”; in that if there was the slightest variation or mutation of the proteins, not only did the proteins not function, the cell that depended on them could not function either; leaving nothing for natural selection to select.

Furthermore, a ‘simple cell’ turned out to be a highly complex organic machine with interdependent subsystems that relied on each other for functionality; with what one observer stated was “wheels within wheels within wheels of interlocking complexity.” With the discovery of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and that it contained digitally coded information; that it had informational processing abilities that were 45,000,000,000 times that of man’s most complex C.P.U. chip, all of chemical and biological evolutionary theory was shown to be in error.

“DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than any we have been able to devise.” Bill Gates of Microsoft

The cartoon found at 0:47 on the original post sums the situation up quite well:


The scientific method:
"Here are the facts,what conclusions can we draw from them?"


The creationist method:
"Heres the conclusion,what facts can we find to support it?


As for creationists insinuating themselves inside classrooms ,I've read that
Liberty 'University' in California actualy teaches students,as factual knowledge,that the earth and everything in it is 3000 years old.
If thats not a complete betrayal of student/teacher principles then I don't know what is.

Maybe schools should have a separate class entitled 'non scientific origin concepts' where children could learn all about various different creation stories from:
Eskimo religion
Polynesian religion
Viking religion
Aborgine religion
Abrahamic religion
Egyptian religion
Rastafarian religion
Native American religion
Greek religion
Aztec religion
African religion
Pagan religion
Hindu religion
etc .................

One things for sure adults teaching children 'faith' as 'fact' is utterly irresponsible,
erroneous,misleading and wrong.
Maybe it has more to do with closed minded people projecting their hysterically insecure, selfish religious agendas rather than having any kind of respect or regard for objective,impartial,rational,free-thinking enquiry.


[edit on 01/24/07 by karl 12]

reply to post by SGTChas


DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than any we have been able to devise.” Bill Gates of Microsoft

I could write a few paragraphs about the dishonesty of quote mining out of context and using it in a dishonest and disingenuous way - but I think I'll let Thunderf00t handle this one. He could sum it up much better than I. The first section of the video puts the above mined quote into context, the rest of it quite aptly applies to the context of the thread in general.

Really? Try this quote on for size:

“It seems as though someone has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.” Paul Davies; famous cosmologist, quantum physicist & materialistic naturalist

I've watched the video and the Bill Gate's quote stands as he went onto clarify and strengthen it. The desperation of the willfully blind to not be confused with the facts is as always amazing; Michael Behe has answered such 'science' as your video exemplifies, along with many other former atheist turn Christian scientist.

Perhaps you might find the latest discoveries of string & and quantum physics instructive if true science is of interest. Then you might ask yourself why so many Ivy League Physicist are becoming Christians?

reply to post by SGTChas


I for one am open to a change in opinion. If you could kindly point me to any peer reviewed intelligent design material, I would be happy to read it.

BTW, i love your resist the NWO slogan. Regardless of difference of opinion here, i'm 100% behind you on that.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Grambler]

Originally posted by Grambler

But fine, you assert that life is complex and should raise a flag. You say that stars, black holes, etc. would count. Well, if I could prove that one of these is more complex than some forms of life (you you admit is very complex), then that would be an example of something not designed that is complex.

i understand what your saying completely.

and i concur, a star's reaction IS complex. but why is it reacting? stars are a process in which and object makes gravity based on its mass, it pulls other objects to it and eventually when the mass becomes dense enough, it starts a reaction. i understand im simplifying it. but its basically a complex chemical reaction that starts from a simple action (gravity)

what im saying is that the complexity is that of variables. nothing more. (and no im not going to say god just made it that way )

pool table is a favorite when it comes to physics. a ball hitting another ball is a simple reaction. an infinite amounts of balls bouncing off each other is a complex reaction. but you can still predict it if you have the all the variable and infinite time

the stars, although the reactions are complex, are guided by physics. life is the only substance in the universe that does things independently of that physical guide. life is not just a set of complex chemical reactions. life has structure that is unique in all the galaxy. my point is, if life can in fact be created from a random happening, why dont we see more examples of this type of structure in the universe?

again it bares asking again, what makes a star's complex chemical reaction so blatantly natural, as opposed to a watch or computer that is blatantly designed.

if someone makes the statement that life bares no evidence of design, then its safe to assume that they have already defined what evidence of design is right?

Originally posted by Lasheic

A good start would be figuring out if there was a plausible naturalistic explanation for it's existence. Snowflakes, on the other hand, are highly intricate structures and patterns which LOOK designed. We know that god does not craft each and every snowflake specially by hand because we understand the mechanisms behind water crystallization.

so far that is the best addition i've seen on this thread. a plausible naturalistic explanation for the objects existance.

does life contain this explanation? even if we look at most simplistic forms, they have complexity all to themselves that cannot be accounted for by the initial random reactions.

let me explain. dna is a complex form with no "ladder" of complexity. its simply there or it isnt. we dont have examples of dna gradually becoming more complex, it is always the 4 letters with varying number of chromosomes. we know life cannot exist without it. this observation suggests that dna formed in its complex form all at once at the same time life formed.

so the question is, can dna form from natural reactions (natural meaning purely physical and chemical reactions without outside manipulations). i think the answer is no. i say that because scientists have tried to make dna in controled conditions and havent been able too. i think that is significant.

reply to post by miriam0566


Thanks again for answering, I'm enjoying having a civilized discussion.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by stars being complex only because of gravity. Clearly, the actual chemical makeup of a star is complex. You claim that its only because of gravity, but thats not true, other physical forces like magnetism tie in. And all life is controlled and made by those same physical properties. In fact, scientist have a very good knowing of just how DNA is formed. Hence human complexity is in the variables. DNA is made up of quite simple components, its how those components react with each other in accordance with the laws of physics (variables) that make it complex.

You say life operates independently of physical forms, but thats not true. Every action any thing living has ever taken has been guided by the laws of physics. You originally said everything complex was designed, but now your making exceptions. I just don't understand your definitions of complexity. It seems very much like you are changing your definition to meet your conclusion. Your saying life is unique, and then your defining that as the only thing complex. Hence this is not a testable theory, and is not science.

I'm not sure what your asking with the watch question. I guess it would be because we observe things that were created by man and see that the watch has many similarities with that, whereas the star consists of things that we have never observed as being designed, thereby being natural. But you yourself admit that the star is natural. And if you don't then your back to the conclusion everything is designed, which agains makes your observations nontestable and therefore not science.

As to rather I have defined evidence of design, not completely. But it doesn't matter, because there is no thing that exists that could have theoretically not been designed. Operating in your vision that all powerful creators are possible, then s/he could have created anything. I can't prove that an all powerful creator didn't create everything. In fact, no one ever will be able to do that. But we can use science to show how things develope, etc.

The burden is on creationists, because you're saying there is evidence that life HAD to be designed. So all we have to do is show that life could have gotten more complex through evolution, which study after study have done.

As to your point that DNA hasn't been created in a lab therefore you don't believe evolution: this has nothing to do with evolution. We have observed and tested evolution of biology over and over again. Even if we can't prove how life is created yet, its a work in progress, and we are far closer now then when we started. Besides, even if we never can prove how life was created, it AT BEST would only show that initial life would have been created, but then evolution took over. Proving "life" was created doesn't prove we were. The evidence would still support that we evolved from the initial creation.