Replies

I believe in an intelligent designer. Like you, I do not know exactly how He did it. Evolution proposes the evolution of the species without focusing on the creation aspect of life. Life does not begin ex nihilo. Nothing cannot create something. To delineate the two is important. micro-evolution within species is a fact. Macro-evolution has no basis in fact (IMO). One species has not, cannot, or will not change into another species.

I believe that life is too complex to have macro-evolved. The eye would have been useless for millions of years with partial evolution, how would that have made the evolving species more capable of surviving during the transition?

Entropy is hard to overcome if all things wind down over time, macro-evolution goes against this and winds up. Infinite amounts of time cannot overcome this.

I believe that ID, creation and macro-evolutionary theories are all for want of more information. This is a good thing. All parties involved should be working together for the answers. Instead, the scientific establishment resorts to name-calling and the ID/creation establishment attempts to box-in the "secular establishment." This is unfortunate.

I believe that the evolution scientists should continue their pursuits of macro-evolutionary possibilities and that the ID/creation establishment should continue their pursuit of an outside influence.

I believe that the bridge to one side working with the other will probably not be reached until both sides are willing to allow the possibility that the other could be correct.

I believe that the answer to this mystery is not a multiple choice question with only one potential answer and no "answer key" to know if it is correct.

I believe that knee-jerk responses to observations, ideas or lines of thought put out by either side against the other, is detrimental to the betterment of the argument.

I believe that posts by PartickHenry and other (sorry to the others that I can't recall off the top of my head, I just know that PH posts a lot and I enjoy his contributions, they are logical and he puts a lot of time into the advancement of his studies and I respect that) evolutionists are interesting, even thought I may not agree with them. I read them all for better understanding of the entire scope of what we are looking at.

I believe this it is my right to pursue either train of thought regardless of what other think, post back to me or attempt to convert me to.

I believe that if one is easily convinced into a way of belief based on one line, or entire dissertations posted of FR without outside due diligence their foundations are weak.

I believe that there will be plenty of responses to this post, and I look forward to reading them all. There will be interesting ones, one liners, probably name calling and some seriously logical ones. I know that I will read them all and reply to a few. But, the most important thing about them is that they will be posted and shared.

I believe that I have typed way too much now, and that I should begin my Saturday.

Lastly, I believe that Ultra Sonic 007 deserves a thank you for making this thread.

FReepgards,

I am not sure of how many responses you will get, given that your post is reasonable, well spoken, and non-inflammatory. Too many on these threads are so unreasonable as to be laughable.

As for me, I was pleased to find a post by someone who, although they may hold different views than me, shares the view that rational discourse is the best hope for advancing knowledge in this area.

I am an evolutionist (both micro- and macro-) who concedes that evolution does not explain the origins of life, it doesn't attempt to. People who are much more educated than me, both Theologically and Scientifically, are working on that question now and will be for a long time.

I hold the view that if there is a non-deity who is the Intelligent Designer, then we will find him in due course. If the Intelligent Designer is a Deity, then how can we scientifically know anything about Him? If one holds to the belief that God created the universe and all life within it, either discretely or by starting the evolutionary ball rolling, then science won't be able to prove or disprove it.

As for the teaching of Intelligent Design in secondary school science classrooms, I am opposed. The sciences are clearly defined disciplines that attempt to explain our universe via clear, reproducible observations. While the leaders of the Discovery Institute have gone on record in the past as proposing that ID be the "wedge" in getting creationism taught in schools, that alone isn't the reason why ID shouldn't be taught. ID proponents have also portrayed it as an "alternative" to the things that evolution can't, (or has yet to), explain. That also isn't the biggest reason that I am opposed to it, but it does strike me as a weak argument when in principle, all they are doing is trying to tear evolution down, not proposing something to better explain the evidence.

The biggest reason that I am opposed to ID in science class is that ID has yet to propose a theory worthy of scientific study. That isn't to say that they are ultimately wrong or right about the origins of life, it is just to say that they haven't proposed a way for science to find out. In short, ID isn't science, it is philosophy. And if the day comes when ID proposes a coherent theory that can be explored scientifically, I will gladly write to my school board, legislators and newspapers to argue for the inclusion of ID in the curriculum.

Again, thanks for the opportunity to vent a little.