Replies

Actually, their objections to evolution were by far the most intelligent I've read. I've tended to find anti-Darwinian unreflective Creationists, desperately trying to fit the round pegs of objective study into square holes of their ideology. This group does not do this. Although it does not really propose a solid alternative to Darwinism, it makes its points where I must concede their accuracy.

Creationism loses its credibility when it tries to argue that the Earth is young, etc. Traditional biology textbooks lose credibility particularly when the talk about such things as the endosymbiotic hypothesis. THe truth is Darwinism can only be proffered as a mechanism for one organism growing into another organism; it does little to explain the Pre-Cambrian development of life. (To be fair, I must point out that these scientists falsely claim that science books typically do not mention the Cambrain explosion.)

The reason I have never bought into Intelligent Design, however, is this: It doesn't explain what *did* happen. While an important critique of modern biology, it is light-years from supporting *biblical* creationism.

> The reason I have never bought into Intelligent Design, however, is this: It doesn't explain what *did* happen.

Oh, SURE it does. Intelligent Design can tell us that in the distant futre, a superintelligent race of cloned aliens will develop time travel, go back in time twenty billion years, and create the Big Bang and then seed the universe with genetically programmed life.

What, you don't believe that? Have you no *faith*?

Intelligent Design... it is light-years from supporting *biblical* creationism.

Only because a lot of the church folks defiantly insist that the only acceptable interpretation of Genesis 1 is 6 24 hour days. Correct interpretation of the Hebrew allows for "days" to be allegorical for much longer periods of time.

An old earth, but one where macroevolution did not occur, is most consistent with scripture and makes scientific sense as well.

Testable Creation Model

I believe in Intelligent Design, and I don't believe the earth is young either. You can look at radioactive dating of granites, etc., and come to a calculation of billions of years old based on decay rate, but based on what we observe in the present, you can't fill a basin with 30,000 feet deep sediment in 10,000 years.

Also, the rock record is what it is. It contains different fauna and flora fossils, that seem to be related, but seem to change in various ways over time. But it is dishonest to say that the rock record presents an undisputed account of transition from a one-celled organism to man. Despite what you may see on the internet, the transition fossils are lacking, and they aren't teaching that the transition fossils have been found in accredited universities. So macro evolution lacks evidence, and people have been looking for a long time.

More importantly, the rock record often cannot even support micro evolution, from one series of brachiopods to another.

If evolution means that things have changed over time, I think most people can understand that, and not have any heartache with that concept. If evolution means that we are here by accident, we are the luckiest monkeys in the galaxy. We were zapped into existence, by the only blue planet in our solar system, out of primordial soup and a bad thunderstorm, and evolved to the point where we contemplate ethics, souls, and conduct to live by that is beyond merely bringing home the dinosaur leg for little Grog and the Mrs.

Darwinism, and evolution, tries to explain our existence by the interactions of scientific principles. What some scientists cannot accept is that, yes, there are questions beyond the reach of our application of scientific principles. For some scientists, this is heresy; science should be able to explain everything in the universe.