Whatever this (ID)is, it is not science.
Evolutionary theory has tons of (scientifically gathered) data to back it up.
Show me the tape.
If you want an idea of what it is, read Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe. Mr. Behe is a scientist, not a theologian.
Darwinism {"origin of the species can be explained by random variation and natural selection") is not a mathematical model, that is, it is not a function in the mathematical sense. This being so, a group of numerical measurements cannot be cranked through the theory making a prediction with the theory's output.
That is, "IF 1, 2, 3...n THEN output variable value is the same value as is measured in nature" cannot be said. Therefore Darwinism remains an hypothesis with no evidence attached.
To make observations and say, "look at what Evolution has wrought", "gee, this is really proof of Evolution," "this looks just like Darwinism is true" is indeed theory making, but not scientific theory making in the sense Newton attempted, Maxwell, or Schwinger. The Darwinist's use of the term "scientific theory" is more akin to Emmanuel Kant's or Karl Marx's.
No numbers in, no numbers out. Same as Marx, same as Lenin.
Myself, I find Darwinism hopelessly metaphysical, religious, and based on faith. Darwinism is a creation myth, and nothing else. Darwinism is not materialistic but instead only moony emotionalism. Group think and pseudo knowledge. Don't need no creation myths.
Actually simple combinatorial mathematics makes Darwinism appear extremely unlikely indeed. Apply numerical models to biochemistry and see for yourself. Stick with materialism and leave religion and science separated.
Excuse me, but evolution has NO evidence to back it up except conjecture. No proof. No transitional species in the fossil record. No evidence even that life started here on earth. There theories about how life started have been proven false, and now they (evolutionists) are saying that life came from some other planet on a rock that hit earth. This gives them a reason to pass over the beggining of life. The cambrian explosion kills the evolution theory so now they are saying the punuated equilibrium is what happened, this amounts to instant mutation from one species to another, also without any proof and actually the study of mutants gives the lie to this theory also. Evolutionists create evidence out of nothing and then have to defend the evidence which sooner or later is proven false. Now before you start to call me a "creationists" know that I do not attend church and haven't since I was a child, I am now 62. BUT I look at evidence and do not believe all the hype. Only real evidence satisfies me and so far there is none for evolution. Whatever happened to cause life it was not "spontaneious combustion" as they once thought. No one knows what it was. Until they prove how life started there is no hope for evolution theory to survive. It will eventually go the way of the DoDo bird.
So, knowing what Man is today, and having fossils from eons ago, but never finding the ever-illusive "missing link" which would have to be somewhere in the middle of the sandwich, makes the evolution theory valid? Why would a theory that perhaps God (The Intelligent Designer) is the "missing link" not be scientifically valid?
It seems to be less scientific to throw out all possibility of an Intelligent Designer, and to stick with the so-far unprovable evolution theory than it would be to include any possibilities. If evolution were provable, the argument/theory would be moot.
Then why use the courts to promote it? Use the "tons of data" to prove it. After all, fewer and fewer believe in evolution every year so the "tons of data" must be thoroughly convincing.
Micro evolution, not macro evolution, has scientific backup. Macro evolution is the only theory that would make the EVOs theory of life work and it requires millions of zillions of years to work There is no proof of macro evolution as last I checked.
No, it does not. And repeating it a million times over does not make it so. As Darwin himself noted, the biggest hole in his theory was the fact that the fossil record should have contained a staggering number of INTER-SPECIES transitionals, yet it contained none. He was confident, however, that the lack was due simply to poor cataloging of the sparse fossil record at that time, and that the voluminous supply of inter-species transitional fossils would soon be found. 160 years later, the number of inter-species transitional fossils remains at zero.
After hundreds of millions of fossils have been cataloged, not ONE solitary inter-species transitional fossil has been found, conjuring claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Yes, lots of suppositions, lots of finding some tiny fragment of a fossil and then extrapolating the remainder of it from thin air in a manner to match their pre-existing notions and needs, but not one single, clear inter-species transitional fossil. With the state of fossil cataloging, there should be a staggering number of INDISPUTABLY CLEAR examples that show the transition from one species to another. They should be everywhere. But there's not ONE. It's kinda like a presidential candidate claiming he won even though not one single vote in any of the fifty states can be found that was cast for him. He points to a dozen or so dimpled-chad ballots and claims that as evidence that he should be inaugurated. Then there's Irreducible Complexity, another insurmountable obstacle to Darwinism. And on it goes.
The ACLU's lawsuit here, and the countless other examples of the squelching of debate, proves the flimsy weakness of Darwinism. If the evidence for evolution was strong, the theory and its disciples wouldn't be so terrified of debate. They shout down anyone who dares to offer another suggestion, because the theory is so pathetically weak that any debate will reveal the truth. Even to school children.
Evolutionists are welcome to respond, but I won't be responding to you. It has utterly nothing to do with a fear of debating you or being bested by you or anything of the sort. To the contrary, I feel sorry for you; you've bought into one of the biggest lies ever created. You've been totally duped. But, alas, you've shown a million times that any discussion is a futile effort. I don't need to see Patrick Henry's regurgitation of his cut-and-paste skull collection and other demagoguery. Sad that in this one area, a few conservatives adopt every deplorable tactic of the left, and just like you can't logically discuss an issue with a hardcore liberal, you can't logically discuss evolution with its dogmatic adherents.
Finally, to be clear: There is no contradiction whatsoever between the Bible and real science. None. God created the laws of physics and everything else, after all. If there were, and I reiterate that there is not, I would accept God's explanation if it were alone against the opinion of the whole of humanity. He was there.
BTW, fellow Christians who believe in evolution, you're discounting not only Genesis, but a lot of other passages as well. God the Creator is mentioned many many many times throughout the Bible. Creation is a core tenet of the faith, and once you go along with the lie that creation isn't real, you open up the entire Bible for dissection one tenet at a time. And when you study Genesis carefully, the words used in the original language, compared to the usage of those words elsewhere in the Bible, it becomes quite clear that Genesis is to be interpreted literally.
Personally, I think the truly fascinating discussion is the mechanism by which God created. Nanotechnology seems a distinct possibility.
MM
Does that include how matter created itself?
"Evolutionary theory has tons of (scientifically gathered) data to back it up"
You must be speaking of all of the tons of transitional forms in the fossil record that are nowhere to be found.
It also has tons of counter-evidence, which every seems ready to ignore at a moment's notice.
" In the beginning......GOD......nothing more , nothing less.....and MOST Americans know this fact. This is no theory....
Isn't it nice to know you and the ACLU are on the same side?