[Fester Chugabrew]

I read the first of these supposed refutations of Coulter's remarks and remain unimpressed. The author makes the mistake so many evos do, mistaking common form for common ancestry, or a descent through history. Yes, this is one way to explain common features. The problem is, we have no way of conclusively demonstrating such a history truly took place.

The author also brings up the matter of double standards. I would like to know how it is that evolutionism is granted so much reasonable inference as noted above while calling itself "scientific", while intelligent design is required to present an intelligent designer front and center, laying out in detail who it is, and what it does, or else it is above and beyond science.

I also note the author approaches the matter with as much emotion as anyone else. That's what we all do when defending our faith. The faith of evolutionism is by no means preposterous, but it offers no explanation for the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions, which in turn is an essential hallmark of intelligent design.

Lastly, Ann Coulter did not "sashay into science" as the author asserts. She took on a philosphy that pretends to be scientific.

[Dimensio]

I read the first of these supposed refutations of Coulter's remarks and remain unimpressed. The author makes the mistake so many evos do, mistaking common form for common ancestry, or a descent through history.

Perhaps, rather than simply asserting this, you could substantiate your claim by citing specific portions of the author's rebuttal and explaining where errors occur.

[UndauntedR]

The author makes the mistake so many evos do, mistaking common form for common ancestry, or a descent through history. Yes, this is one way to explain common features. The problem is, we have no way of conclusively demonstrating such a history truly took place.

I know, I totally agree. Even though though all the evidence can be explained by common descent, doesn't mean it was. "Scientists" make the same mistake with everything. Just because we can see objects falling to earth doesn't mean angel's aren't guiding them. I mean, without the gravity angels, I lose all perspective and there would be no reason to hold onto my morals at all.

Theories explain observations and attempt to tie them together parsimoniously. That's all they do.

Explaining all these observations in a CR/ID context... well, it certainly isn't parsimonious. One of my favorite links:

http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm