What evidence.
The fossil record, DNA lines...
Behe's "Darwin's black box' pretty much dispels the evolution myth.
How?
I'm not aware of one, but would be interested in hearing what you might have to offer.
I have none to offer. No one has ever presented a reasonable falsification criteria for ID. That's why it is a fundamentally worthless explanation. If there's no possible way that it could be shown to be false, it has no meaning.
I never said that disproving evolution is proof, or even evidence of creation/ID, did I?
No, but you did speculate that the majority of those who accept evolution do so because they can't disprove ID or creation. You spoke on their motives, and I have to wonder why you assume such a motive, especially when you seem to think that their motive is hinged upon some implied significance to ID/creation.
On the other hand, I think there is substantial evidence for ID.
And this evidence would be? Prediction of ID? A test? A falsification criteria (some hypothetical observation that, if discovered, would show that ID if false)?
Whether you agree or not is up to you. As a minimum, an honest believer in evolution would admit they don't have all the answer for the problems of evolution and that part of their belief in it requires some element of faith; wouldn't you agree?
Only as much "faith" as accepting any other scientific theory.
If not, please explain the complete lack of transitional life forms?
What complete lack of transitional life forms?!
If you accept the punctuated equilibrium explanation, do you really think that a male and female of a species would be transformed at birth at the same time, in the same manner, in the same proximity, survive to adulthood, and then meet and successfully mate? It does not take a scientist to realize that the odds of such events occurring would be statistically impossible.
Maybe if you would look at the
research on the evolution of sexual reproduction rather than arguing a strawman you would have a stronger position.
The fossil record, DNA lines... What fossil record? DNA lines? You actually believe that garbage?
Read Behe's book and you will understand, assuming you can comprehend a bit of scientific writing.
No one has ever presented a reasonable falsification criteria for ID.
As for the link you provided, the author assumes evolution to be true. A conclusion based on a false premise has no merit. Think that might be a clue?
That's why it is a fundamentally worthless explanation. If there's no possible way that it could be shown to be false, it has no meaning.
I never said that ID was a theory, did I. You claim that evolution is a theory, but it is actually a model since it cannot be replicated. In spite of that issue, evolution is falsifiable and there is much evidence that it is false and none of the modifications to the evolutionary model has helped the cause of evolutionists.,P> Given that evolution has been established to be false to a large degree, what other alternative do you have to offer. Creation/id does offer an alternative, and absent any other suggested explanation, it is not an unreasonable or irrational position to take, is it?
What complete lack of transitional life forms?
You'd win a Nobel prize if you could actually find some evidence of them.
As for the link you provided, the author assumes evolution to be true. This a very weak attempt at reasoning. If the premise is false, the conclusion has no merit.