Replies

"In other news, the "Intelligent Design In Our Time" movement (IDIOT for short), demands medical schools teach mighty powerful exorcism for the curing of disease."

Heheh, is that a 'scientific response'?

Can you sense the shift in the public debate? People are not so easily buying the deterministic materialism that so many of you try to pass off as 'evolutionary science'.

I believe that biological evolution is how God brought about life and that this universe is hugely old, in the tens of billions of years old.

And I see nothing about ID that contradicts that belief at all on my part, because I believe that God used an evolutionary process and so I am not bothered to see plenty of elements of design therein.

But the materialists ahve been using bilogical evolution for decades now to brow-beat theists into regarding their observations of desing as so much coincidence.

Those days are ending now, and people like you who have a vested interest in a nihilistic universe are being plainly shown to be wrong.

But the debate is not between biological evolution vrs Creationism, it is between materialists trying to maintain a monopoly on the public forums and denying the right to b e heard to anyone who believes we are not here by some cosmological accident.

Step aside, and let science move on into the 21st century, why dont you?

"Can you sense the shift in the public debate?"

Over 40% of the 'public' in the US thinks the earth is 5000 years old, hardly a task to convince them of anything...

"And I see nothing about ID..."

I agree with you here, I see nothing about ID either! In that I mean ID is not an alternative to evolution since ID /has/ no theory. Id is a collection of attacks against evolution, this in no way constitutes a scientific theory!

If god made all this, then why does ID not explain anything. How long ago did he make everything? How do you explain the fossil record? How old is man? Essentially, what is the ID answer for all the questions evolution answers? There are none! Why? Because providing data and doing actual science means creating hypotheses that are falsifiable and reproducible. This is something ID'ers cannot do. ID is not considered science by anyone who actually does real science.

ID is defined by it's opposition to evolution. Without evolution, ID has no scientific merit. Essentially distorting the work of legitimate scientists and using it against science. 'Magic' is not an acceptable alternative to the huge explanatory model of evolution. Cite a couple of hypotheses from the ID model of natural diversity for us? But do it independently of evolution. That means no mention of evolution. You cannot, because ID is not science!

Of course there are gaps in evolution. There are gaps in the theory of gravity too, I find it interesting that uneducated christians don't seem to have a problem with gravity... History has shown that gaps in theories get filled in with time (as is expected in science as research continues), so pointing at gaps in evolution and saying 'it must be magic!' is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Even this ridiculous article is a good example. This paper published, was it a paper on ID? NO! It was a paper attacking evolution!!! Do you see the difference? I realize that to people who have no idea how science works, this is easy to miss.

ID relies on the false premise that if evolution is proven wrong, then god musta gone dunnit. Well, sorry folks, even if tomorrow an archaeologist finds a cat skeleton beside a t-rex skeleton and evolution is falsified, that does not mean the answer is MAGIC!!!

Time to change the lead plumbing.