Why Are Darwinists So Afraid of Intelligent Design?

Human Events ^ | Jan 17, 2006 | Barney Brenner

[King Prout]

1. King Kong is a fictional and impossible organism.
2. I believe in God.
3. ID is not to be dignified as even "bad" science: it is a steaming pantsload.

happy?

[M203M4]

If you accept that evolution is how God made us, then you do not support "ID". If you need to call it something, a common term is "evolutionary creation". ID supports throwing away one of the most valuable of God's gifts to man. EC is fully compatible with ALL scientific observation AND with the Christian faith.

[mnehring]

By the way, I was only agreeing with someone else's statement. I am an ID'er, but don't have a problem with evolution. :->

Ditto. I have no problem with evolution or God.

[moog]

I'm a deist. I believe in God. I'm mocking those who believe ID is a science rather than faith-based belief.

ID is faith-based with some science, plain and simple.
Now don't mock me, because I'm a re-mock-able person.:)

[spunkets]

" 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Specifically, this law states that everything in any given environment tends to go from an ordered state, to a state of homogenius pressure, temperature and a state of balanced forces."

Ah, the 2nd law violations again. Your definition is wrong. After you get a good one, provide an example of where the 2nd law is violated. Note that you didn't give any examples in your post.

"If ID were dishonest, then the laws of choas would be true. The Universe would be a homogenius mass of Hydrogen, Helium and the such."

Ridiculous!

[Oztrich Boy]

Particle Physics is science. John Haglin is a New Age Transcentental Meditation Mystic.

One does not validate the other.

[Yosemite]

Evolution = Evolve

Like a Model T to Modern day SUV

But It took Intelligent design

[r9etb]

ID is not to be dignified as even "bad" science: it is a steaming pantsload.

No, it's not. We know it's a reasonable hypothesis, because we know for a fact that it can be done. You can even buy stock in companies that make money doing it.

What would be really interesting is to see how "science" would explain a glow-in-the-dark pig, without an ID explanation.

[Dog Gone]

An honest "we don't know" would be refreshing, as would an honest "we think it happened this way." But the "doesn't address the beginning of life" argument is a cop-out.

I don't know where you've been, but everything I've been reading in scientific journals has been giving you everything you're calling for. Maybe they haven't been wailing enough and calling for ID as their savior. I dunno.

Evolution never has tried to explain origin of life. Never.

For you or anyone else to set it up as something it isn't in order to knock it down is just silly. Stop it. I respect your intellect more than to let you do this.

Evolutionary theory doesn't address origin of life. It addresses what happened after life appeared. Nothing more.

[LibertarianInExile]

"I love the term "Darwinists" that ID kooks use to describe scientists who propound a legitimate scientific theory. What next..physicists and Chemists are "Newtonists", "Bohrists" and "Faradayists"

Hey, why not? I personally am entertained by the whole "Darwinist" thing. As if Darwinists can't label them "IDeists" to demonstrate exactly what the whole ID movement is all about.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC SPOTREP

[M203M4]

I'd like to have a head count of everyone who believes in ID, but does not believe in God.

Kinda like asking about those "lifelong Republicans" who voted for Kerry.

[r9etb]

Evolution never has tried to explain origin of life. Never.

OK, then it merely assumes it. You know this.

[LibertarianInExile]

"I'd like to have a head count of everyone who believes in ID, but does not believe in God."

If we're betting on numbers, I guess 2.

[apackof2]

Well don't sugar coat it, tell me what you really mean

/sarcasm

[Torie]

I'd like to have a head count of everyone who believes in ID, but does not believe in God.

It depends on how you define ID. Jwalsh07 uses it to mean the big bang (well he uses the word creationism, but whatever, let's not get caught up in such trivia). If that is what it means, then count my head. :)

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm just trying to figure what a cubit is.

[apackof2]

Romans 1:22

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

[LibertarianInExile]

Snore

[moog]

If you accept that evolution is how God made us, then you do not support "ID". If you need to call it something, a common term is "evolutionary creation". ID supports throwing away one of the most valuable of God's gifts to man. EC is fully compatible with ALL scientific observation AND with the Christian faith.

Oh joy, why do I get in the middle of these arguments? I'm only here to see both sides and you guys duke it out. I do support ID. But I actually came to that conclusion long ago about ID through learning about evolution--I thought that it was too complex just to be designed by anyone other than God. AND you point out one thing. EC needs at least some of evolution to be true in order to work. IT also needs the existence of God to be true. That's why I have no problem with either. Please take your arguments to someone who's looking for one. I agree with you, but I'm not one to try and "outprove" the other. I can't prove my own personal faith experiences. No one can.