The "designers" controlling evolution are the rules of chemistry. Untold billions of particles, all acting according to a set of rules. When each human in Hayek's system act according to their needs, an efficient economy evolves. When each atom in evolution's system acts according to it's rules, life evolves.
Prove that it did. Don't demand that I take the "scientific" theory of evolution on faith.
Prove a designer did it. Don't demand that I put my children in a public school and teach them one particular ancient faith with no greater reliability than hundreds of other ancient faiths.
A cute way to bias the argument. "Oooh, those eeeeeevil, stoooooopid fundamentalists."
And I suppose you've never thrown around the term "Darwinist".
But there are also plenty of Creationists who are willing to grant a 15 billion year old universe
Then you admit that Genesis is not literal. So what *other* parts of Genesis are not literal? The development of man perhaps?
And that's why I don't bother to debate this issue the way I used to; it became obvious long ago that I was not engaged in a scientific discussion, but a religious discussion with someone who isn't honest enough to admit it.
You're funny.
That is as clear a statement of faith as the Apostles Creed ever hoped to be.
As xzins has already pointed out, that's a statement of pure metaphysical (religious) faith, without a hint of science in it. It's on par with saying, "When each atom in evolution's system acts according to it's rules, computers assemble themselves spontaneously."
I admire a faith which depends on a 1 in 10^300 chance (or whatever you want to calculate the odds of random abiogenesis at). I just wish you guys were honest enough to admit your faith for what it is, and cease teaching such religious ideals in our science classes.
Prove a designer did it.
Prove that an intellegence produced your post, which has far less information in it than a "simple" cell.
And I suppose you've never thrown around the term "Darwinist".
I've usually said "evolutionist" or "evo" for short. Why? Is Darwinist a purjorative?
The equivalent would be for me to refer to you guys as "godless" on a continual basis. Which I can start doing if you want, but I'll wager that you'll start calling me down on using prejudicial language to color the debate. And you'd be right to do so--just as I'm right to call you down for the equivalent.
Then you admit that Genesis is not literal.
Not at all. I think Genesis is entirely literal. However, I also know enough Hebrew, its original language, to point out that yom ("day") may speak of a period of time longer than 24-hours, an age, as it does in the common Biblical phrase "the Day of the Lord." Ergo, I can conceed the issue of the age of the universe for the sake of discussion without having to agree to the absurd evolutionary paradigm that matter + energy + time = complex information. Setting my room on fire does not result in it becoming more organized, nor does randomly splattering paint on a canvas produce a work on par with The Last Supper or the Mona Lisa.
As for the "development of man," when you guys manage to produce some missing links that aren't either chimpanzees, arthritic men, pigs' teeth, or outright frauds that are actually distinguishable enough from modern man to be an issue, I'll worry about it. Until then, I owe you no apology for my belief that Man is a special creation of God. I wouldn't argue that that belief should be taught in a biology class, of course. I just want you guys to stop padding the evidence presented to the kids with unsupported leaps of logic and known frauds. I also want you to knock off the hypocrisy of pretending that IDers could get a fair hearing in peer reviewed journals when we all already know what happens to those who dare to let them be heard.
You wouldn't think that'd be too much to ask, but apparently it is.