Great links. I just skimmed the 15 answers. Creation "science" is an oxymoron, isn't it? The funniest part of "intelligent design" for me is its inherent paradox, not mentioned in the 15 answers: if design is required for any phenomena of sufficient complexity, then who designed God?
Plenty more at my freeper homepage. Among them are these:
Facts, Faith, and Fairness. Why creationism isn't science.
Creation "Science" Debunked. Why creationism is NOT science.
An Index to Creationist Claims. From Talk.Origins. Exhaustive list.
The funniest part of "intelligent design" for me is its inherent paradox, not mentioned in the 15 answers: if design is required for any phenomena of sufficient complexity, then who designed God?
Then if we do not have an transcendent God who created us, what do you believe? Does it take more faith to believe that a premordial soup was struck by a shot of energy and a single celled mechanism was the direct result? Do you also believe that Mt. Rushmore was the direct result of erosion?
The antropic principle states that the physical structure of the universe is exactly what is needed to sustain life (any closer to the sun and we would burn and any farther away and we would freeze). Do you believe that all the intricacies of the universe are just the result of happen-stance?