[AntiKev]

By the same token, show us a good example of intelligent design and explain how you rule out macro-evolution. This debate goes both ways. But again, just more meaningless finger pointing “my imaginary friend is better than yours!”

The problem is that although Darwin provided the basis for current science, a significant portion of his research and observations have been discarded in favour of more modern research. There is no conclusive evidence either way right now...but I will point out a quote that I posted in another ID/Evolution thread earlier:

“I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.”
- Robert Heinlein through Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land

[ROTB]

>I will point out a quote that I posted in another
>ID/Evolution thread earlier:

>“I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to
>pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a
>sloppy way to run a universe.”
>
>- Robert Heinlein through Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a
>Strange Land

Only the Bible says what happens thousands of years before it happens. Please see http://www.direct.ca/trinity/y3nf.html for the details.

The Koran, the Bag-va-geet-a, Zoroastrianism, Ba-hai-ism, the Hindu Vedas, etc. are not like this. The non-divine authors of these books wisely stay away from predictive prophecy, in which they routinely fail.

[ROTB]

>There is no conclusive evidence either way right now ...

I am currently listening to “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel http://www.amazon.com/Case-Creator-Journalist-Investigates-Scientific/dp/0310254396/ref=sr_1_1/102-8767029-5694527?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183809622&sr=8-1.

Very, very, interesting! (You have to say this with a German accent)

Listening to this will help the inclined to better choose how good the evidence is FOR a creator.

[ChessExpert]

There is no conclusive evidence either way right now...

O.K.

but I will point out a quote that I posted in another ID/Evolution thread earlier:
“I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.”
- Robert Heinlein through Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land

Now we’ve jumped away from intelligent design and Darwinian, or some other, theory of evolution right into theology. I find that an odd thing to do.

The quote, presumably your thinking as well, contains an assertion that “God expects his creatures to pick one true religion by faith.” What is the basis for that? I have not heard it before.

It is true that there are many religions. Some take this as disproof of religion. There are also many versions of evolution but that is taken as support for evolution. Perhaps anyone who takes a complex topic, or field, seriously will be able to discern non-trivial differences of opinion. Those who do not take the topic seriously can use these differences as an opportunity to mock the field or domain. I’ve done this myself in challenging global warmng. It went something like this. In the 70’s you predicted doom from global cooling, now you predict doom from global warming, make up your mind. This technique may be valid to the point of challenging dogmatism. But I think rejecting religion, evolution, climate study, or anything else, in its entirety simply because there are differences of opinion is mistaken. It’s dogmatism that I reject. I welcome differences of opinion. I take them as a positive sign.