Replies

I wish the pro-science side would just drop this FSM nonsense and focus on the merits of the argument. They're strong enough by themselves.

Sticking to the merits of the argument would be a good thing, but after engaging in this discussion for some time, I've come to the conclusion that it really isn't a scientific debate. If it was, the lack of empirical evidence for the keystones of evolution would have settled the issue a long time ago.

Even Stephen J. Gould - no friend of the ID movement - states: Evolutionary biology has been severely hampered by a speculative style of argument that records anatomy and ecology and then tries to construct historical or adaptive explanations for why this bone looked like that or why this creature lived here. These speculations have been charitably called "scenarios"; they are often more contemptuously, and rightly, labeled "stories" (or "just-so stories" if they rely on the fallacious assumption that everything exists for a purpose). Scientists know that these tales are stories; unfortunately, they are presented in the professional literature where they are taken too seriously and literally.

Furthermore, not all IDers believe that God created the earth in 7 days. Some believe that God's role was limited to that of original genetic engineer in the distant past. Yet, evolutionists resist even this idea despite their lack of any reasonable alternative revealing that their goal is not to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain the origin of life without God.

Yet, evolutionists resist even this idea despite their lack of any reasonable alternative revealing that their goal is not to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain the origin of life without God.

Evolutionists are open to a scientific alternative theory. ID (Creationisms retared cousin) is NOT a scientific alternate theory.

TTOE is silent on God. MOst Evo's are Christian.

Furthermore, not all IDers believe that God created the earth in 7 days.

I know of that. Furthermore, all the leaders of the ID movement accept common descent.

Some believe that God's role was limited to that of original genetic engineer in the distant past. Yet, evolutionists resist even this idea despite their lack of any reasonable alternative revealing that their goal is not to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain the origin of life without God.

Nonsense. The above is wrong on at least two levels.

First, "evolutionsits", by which I presume you mean evolutionary biologists, are not concerned with the origin of life. That is not their field of study. Evolutionary biology only deals with how life, once it developed, changed over time.

Second, scientists studying the origin of life, i.e. abiogenesis, don't "resist" the idea that God was somehow involved. Rather, being scientists, they are simply seeking to determine the physical and chemical processes that were involved in bringing life into existence. Whether God is behind these processes is a question outside the scope of science, and therefore they cannot address it.