Replies

Much of the ID crowd is just as blindly dogmatic about their views as the evolution crowd.

You seem to be somewhat objective and willing to talk rationally, so I'll give you some of my thoughts.

I agree that "some" of the ID crowd is dogmatic about their views, but, in my opinion, most of the evolution crowd is dogmatic about their views - to the point of personal attacks when they run out of facts.

I wholeheartedly believe in Creation by a Creator. Even though I don't pretend to know all of the answers, when I look at all of the evidence objectively, including the fact that most evolutionists are so adamant because they don't believe in an Intelligent Designer, I come to only one conclusion, with no hesitation, without apology, objectively, and with no hidden agenda.

One of the major issues I have with evolutionists is that they keep changing the definition of evolution. Originally, evolution meant, as defined in the Oxford Dictionary, 1) the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. 2)the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

But, today, evolutionists have had to adjust their definition to include "adaption". Life does adapt - that's irrefutable, but, to me, that's part of the Design. No life form has ever been proven to "adapt" from one species to another.

Some of the evidences I see:

- the obvious "special" creation of the Earth, as evidenced by our totally unique solar and lunar eclipses and the unequaled combination of factors that are required to support life on Earth.
- radiohalos
- spiral galaxies
- irreducible complexity of such things as eyes, the human knee, blood clotting, flagellates, etc.

One of my favorite quotes:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. - Charles Darwin