Replies

There is still a lot more which science cannot explain than what it can, with any level of certainty. Man's pride in self through science is best demonstrated by the rejection of that which cannot be understood or comprehended. Rejection of the supernatural is nothing less than a rejection of God. You simply cannot claim a belief in God and the Bible, and also reject the countless supernatural events which God has used throughout history to demonstrate to us that we are not supreme in the universe. God's account in Genesis where He forms a statue from mud and breaths life into it does NOT jive with evolution's suggestions that we came from a pool of slime.

Creation vs Darwinism, Evolution vs ID...

Darwinism makes atheism intellectually fulfilling. And it does all this against the background of a certain panoramic grandeur. But evolution is a broader concept than Darwinism.

Darwinist arguments often assume that intelligent design, for example, is antievolution. That is simply not true. Intelligent design advocates affirm evolution as such, they simply deny that Darwinism provides an exhaustive explanation of the process. However, one of the criticisms leveled against intelligent design is its apparent need to assume the occasional intervention of an outside intelligent agent. That, its detractors claim, is unscientific.

Why such an appeal is unscientific is not clear since scientists qua scientists make it all the time. Indeed, the somewhat dubious distinction between "artificial" and "natural" rests on it.

We can spot the activity of mind behind an arrow head or a bird nest (or a scientific theory for that matter!), but apply the same principle to biological structures or biochemical processes and the ID advocate is accused of doing something illicit. I suspect that is because the materialistic agenda that came to dominate science in the early twentieth century and later captured it is offended by the claim. But that agenda can no more sustain itself than intelligent design can.

Both positions are inferences that are fundamentally faith based. And that means that in mainstream science the majority rules. It's known as consensus. Thus it is worth pointing out that when "science" demands to be shown a miracle, it is demanding to be shown what it believes (note that word) could not possibly exist. Therefore it seeks to be shown in order to debunk, and debunking in any way, no matter how implausible, will suffice. What accounts for such a prejudice if not bias? I would point out that there is another name for such conjectures: Just So Stories. And that is, all too often, what the Darwinist offers. It's a kind of promissory note, an appeal to a hoped for payoff in the future.

You know, just once, I would actually like to discuss something with these airheads that ACTUALLY is in the Theory of Evolution!

We spend all our time arguing about creation of original life, which is not part of the TOE. Then they think they make some brilliant point in a strawman argument and go around proud as punch. It is so stupid and so unlike anything Jesus would do, it just makes me sick.

The worst part is they use winning a nonsensical argument with themselves as authority to impose their heretical cult on others.