Replies

>A third and valid criticism is that Intelligent Design
>has no empirical data to support it

Evolutionists and Creationists have the same Evidence. What the evidence indicates depends largely upon the worldview of the beholder.

> has generated no hypotheses

Patently false. I could give you a long list of web sites where such hypotheses are forwarded, but your mind is probably made up.

> scientifically-generated results in scientific journals

They are generally not allowed to publish any of their findings in any of the Mainstream "scientific" journals.

The same kind of ideologues dominate "scientific" journalism as those that dominate what we call the Main Stream Media around here. In some cases, they probably even share the same board of directors, or at least some of the directors.

The religion of Evolutionism has many of the same hallmarks as the religion of Environmentalism; the same kinds of assertive pronouncements and predictions from "on high" that, when proven false, are quickly shoved under the rug; the same blackballing for heresy; the same schoolyard name calling; the same categorical dismissal of the other side's arguments with derision and sarcasm.

I fully expect the Evolutionists in this forum to disparage my remarks with the most biting derision they can muster. They will characteize me as a mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, pie-eyed moron, when clearly my writing belies their assessment.

They haven't disappointed me yet.

I don't believe I've ever had an intelligent conversation with an Evolutionist, because they dismiss me as an ignoramus and a drooling idiot at the outset and their minds are clamped shut.

I was an Evolutionist once, so I understand this mindset.

I was also a Liberal once.

I don't think it was a coincidence that I was a Liberal when I was an Evolutionist. They have so much in common.

Well, enjoy.

... Time ... Will ... Tell ... All ...

.

The religion of Evolutionism

You lost me right at this point.

Scientists all over the globe, day in and day out, since the late 1800's have been searching for empirical data to test the hypotheses generated by the Theory of Evolution. Religions don't do this. Religion is the presumption of faith. Science is the presumption of the unknown until empirical data suggest otherwise.

Very well stated.

I have also noticed the similarity between the typical evolutionist and "liberal" style of dealing with new information that may conflict with their world view.

Darwin did an excellent job selling his theory; he presented a purely abstract idea and convinced people by relating his ideas to known qualities in their lives. He then suggested they would have to reject all these known facts in order to reject his theory.

Here is a very interesting interview about Darwin's style.

http://www.uctv.tv/library-test.asp?showID=7007

When you start to investigate the claims of the theory it completely falls apart. Much like the typical liberal beliefs regarding economics, social policy, foreign policy etc.

Westbrook: The religion of Evolutionism has many of the same hallmarks as the religion of Environmentalism; the same kinds of assertive pronouncements and predictions from "on high" that, when proven false, are quickly shoved under the rug

be4: When you start to investigate the claims of the theory it completely falls apart.

Here's an excellent opportunity for you to educate the ignorant.

Westbrook, you can delineate some of the specific "assertive pronouncements and predictions" that have been "proven false" and then "quickly shoved under the rug." And while you're at it, perhaps list some of the specific reasons why you find the theory of evolution to be in error.

And be4, you can state what specific "claims of the theory" you have investigated, and the manner in which these claims "completely fall apart."

Please, don't be bashful. There's no point in hiding your wisdom behind unsupported generalizations.