All knowledge runs into the problem of infinite regress eventually, not just science and religion. Regardless, science is defined as dealing with that which can be proven or disproven; and so things which are unproveable are outside of its domain (as I'm sure you're well aware).
However, I want to address the bad understanding of science that's been shown higher up in this thread that young earth creationist arguments usually have. I have no problem with people believing in Genesis if they like, but I do wish they wouldn't distort science to try and prove it. So, here goes:
I've always interpreted claims of no new information ever being created as claims that the amount of genetic material is increased. If this is actually what is meant (which it isn't most of the time, because generally people claiming this have no real understanding of biology, and no desire to learn, and are merely repeating what they have heard elsewhere), then there are cases to disprove it. Huntington's disease is one, where a gene is repeated too many times. Sure, it's not a beneficial mutation, but it's an addition. Other than that, though, Michael's post on context and information is brilliant and shows the problem of interpretation really well. (Actually, I think it's one of the most lucid things I've read on the issue anywhere.)
Also, from that blog post, it links to two articles on evolution and genetics. Please don't read them; they are unscientific (there is talk of the "fallen world" in there) and make use of logical fallacies liberally. Find something else to read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000  If macro evolution were correct, then, through the processes of natural selection, there would be no more bacteria or simple life forms. They would have died out, because more complex organisms would have multiplied in numbers rapidly without any competition. |
Not really. There's a comparison with tools here. If I have a basic saw (a piece of metal with teeth), then that's simpler than a powersaw. The powersaw wouldn't have come about without someone inventing the saw first, but the saw's still around. Basically, just because something more advanced from something less advanced, doesn't mean there's not a niche for the simpler of the two. Powersaws would be overkill most of the time. (Indeed, while you are a big macro-organism, there are many micro-organisms inside your gut that help digest your food for you.)