Replies

I don't understand the need to push Intelligent Design.

Belief in God requires only faith.

Some of its proponents push the theory for reasons that have nothing to do with a belief in God. For them, it is the intellectual dissatisfaction with a purely naturalistic theory of the origins of the universe and the coming about of life as we know it. I do not understand why the "bogeyman" of religion always has to be invoked whenever one postulates that there is more at work here than
chance and physical laws. The "Teleological" argument is not based on a religious assumption, but a philosophical one. Religion relies on direct, experiencial revelation and does not need to speculate from an observed effect to an unseen cause.

I don't think it has much to do with acquiescence to religious beliefs. There are some who take that tact but it doesn't accomplish much. Intelligent design or the theory of abrupt appearance whichever one is to take both make scientifically testable hypothesizes that attempt to step back from or extend standard evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory currently is built on a series of rather fragile and often contradictory ideas and is largely without credible proofs.

What has been proven is that micro-evolution occurs which is the ability of an organism to adapt based upon preexisting genetic variability. Something as basic as proving phylogeny such as from amphibians to reptiles has been largely based upon fantastic drawings in textbooks than scientific proof.
The fossil Seymouria is put forth as an example of a bridge but it is no less amphibian than any other amphibian futher more structural similiarity alone does not necessarily indicate phylogeny and with fossils we only have the merest structural remains. One other important fact is that reptiles were living on earth some 30 million years before Seymouria. I think this illustrates a hopeless need to grasp even the faintest evidence as proof.

Regardless I think the debate concerning evolution is good for futhering science because it will force all involved to improve and refine their thinking because currently there are many content to live in a delusion that evolutionary theory is basically complete. I don't believe this and I think honest scientists know that we are just scraping the edge of what is the true complexity of the evolution of life on Earth and we will not make much progress posturing in our little hidey holes.

I don't understand the need to push Intelligent Design. Belief in God requires only faith.

Anyone who demands that science acquiese to their religious beliefs needs to work less on their science and more on their faith.

In order to believe in anything you must have faith in something. The logic upon which all science rests requires the induction of certain presuppositions. These presuppositions can be proven neither right nor wrong. These are the rules of logic known to man since Plato. Many atheists, in their delusion, have chosen to ignore logic. Instead of addressing the fact that all logic must be based on premise, they choose instead to cloud the waters with a façade of intellectualism while ridiculing the very foundation of logic in which the pretend to operate. It may feel good to scoff at the idea of some greater intelligence. But let us summarize the proposed alternative: in the beginning there was a big bang, all laws of physics and mathematics immediately existed, and it was good. On the 10^99999999th day the laws of physics had created man. In essence, the atheist’s view of creation differs from the theist’s only in the impersonality of The Laws of Physics verses the Personality of God (and perhaps the time span).

Exodus 3:14 - God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM "; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.

The God of the Christian Bible is presented as the beginning of all logic, the premise upon which all existence rests. But this God is much greater than the god of the atheist (for the atheist does indeed have a premise, a logos, a god, or what ever you wish to call it). The God of the Bible cares about the recursive result of His premise, whereas the god of the atheist is just as uncaring as the atheist construes him to be.

"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties." - Sir Francis Bacon