Replies

In order to disprove intelligent design, you have to prove creation by some other means. We cannot prove that the universe was created, nor can we prove that the universe started off with the big bang theory, because we were not there to observe it. So we can neither prove nor disprove evolution, the same way we can neither disprove or prove evolution, because our scientific method forbids us from assuming that the Big Bang is common fact, as much as it forbids us from claiming Creation as common fact. I actually don't care what our origins are. And despite what scientists say, evolution is not a key integral in science, physics, or astronomy. We know that things can and tend to drift because they have the space to drift, we cannot prove that galaxies are getting farther away from each other because of the big bang and a rapidly expanding universe. Galaxies would be claimed by gravity, larger galaxies being absorbed into smaller galaxies for instance, same sized galaxies orbiting each other, etc. Does anyone know the exact size of the so-called beginning particle? If so, how did it come around (it would give the big bang theory credibility, but it would open more doors to which our current science does not have the means of going through).

"In order to disprove intelligent design, you have to prove creation by some other means."

There is no way to disprove ID. Anything and everything can said to be an example of ID.

"We cannot prove that the universe was created, nor can we prove that the universe started off with the big bang theory, because we were not there to observe it."

That's not the reason. No theory in science can be proven. Proof is for mathematics and whiskey.

"So we can neither prove nor disprove evolution, the same way we can neither disprove or prove evolution, because our scientific method forbids us from assuming that the Big Bang is common fact, as much as it forbids us from claiming Creation as common fact."

The Big Bang is totally and completely independent of evolutionary theory.

" And despite what scientists say, evolution is not a key integral in science, physics, or astronomy."

Physics and astronomy are both sciences.

"We know that things can and tend to drift because they have the space to drift, we cannot prove that galaxies are getting farther away from each other because of the big bang and a rapidly expanding universe."

We can find tons of evidence that the universe is expanding.

In order to disprove intelligent design, you have to prove creation by some other means.

Now you're just being silly. In order to disprove ID, one need only show that a prediction of ID is wrong. Confirmation or disproof of one theory is not dependant on confirmation or disproof of a competing theory.

ID must stand or fall on its own merits. Identify a feature of the world that can only be caused by ID, and then go looking for confirmation. The proponents of ID have fallen far short of that mark in failing to put forth those predicted observations. Instead, you (they) construct a false dichotomy between evolution and ID (formerly evolution and creationism) hoping that a perceived weakness in evolution will count as points for their side.

And in this, as with all forms of short term thinking, peril lies ahead. Should the ID movement succeed in overthrowing the "dictatorship of Darwin" and cast the demon of evolution out of the human spirit, how then will you support your theory?