There is a large body of research substantiating Intelligent Design, and the work stands up to scrutiny far better than evolutionism does. It fits the evidence!
INTREP - These people [evolutionists] continue to refuse to look at the evidence and the work that has been done. I guess they figure if you hurl enough "brick bats," something will change. It is truly a bad day for evolutionary integrity.There is a large body of research substantiating Intelligent Design, and the work stands up to scrutiny far better than evolutionism does. It fits the evidence!
I respect your right to say this, but saying it doesn't make it so. This is not a 'he-said/she-said' situation, where there's equal weight on both sides of the question. This is more like an 'evolutionary-Mount-Everest/intelligent-design-grain-of-sand' situation.
He was born 196 years ago today; I'm glad today is NOT my birthday.
His Grandfather conducted experiments to shock stuff 'to life', and Mary Shelly witnessed those experiments.
His Grandfather wrote the poem "Temple of Nature".
It is only natural that what we are witnessing .... keeps saying the same ol same ol ...
This is the fundamental flaw in the intelligent design theory.
The problem with ID is not that it may or may not fit observation. That is not the issue. Only the ID and creationist idiots think that; and largely because they don't have a clue as to what science is.
To wit:
Science isn't defined by outcome. It is defined by process.
Therefore, ID may or may not be "obvious". I don't care to argue the point and it is irrelevant. The issue is that ID does not meet the definition of science because it has not followed the fundamental process of science.
I don't doubt that there are many flaws in evolution. I don't doubt that more will be found. But evolution is science by definition, because the process of deriving it was scientific.
Unfortunetly, the "large body of research" was written in a code, and the invisible pink unicorn stole the magic decoder ring...
And what the evolutionists call "evidence" is simply twisted logic/interpretation of physical entities. Of course no one - including themselves - can prove absolutely that "evolution" (in the sense that some one-celled blob became a human being after a few billion years - however, evolution within a species is very understandable and reasonable) is true. It is just a guess, a hypothesis.
Okay - let the flames begin! :o)