Replies

"A scientific hypothesis must be testable -- meaning that, if it is wrong, there should be a way to disprove it. (That's why assertions that there is no conclusive proof of evolution are basically pointless.)

What? That last sentence doesn't make sense.

''Intelligent design" boils down to the claim sarcastically summed up by aerospace engineer and science consultant Rand Simberg on his blog, Transterrestrial Musings: ''I'm not smart enough to figure out how this structure could evolve, therefore there must have been a designer."

Obviously an opponent of ID shouldn't be used as a source to define the ID movement. ID gets the cold shoulder from the secular materialists because it dares say that both Intelligence and Design are in evidence in our world.

My favorite riot by evolutionist is when they say they won't debate with a creationist because they only debate scientists, and a creationist cannot be a scientist.

Talk about flawed logic based on one's own definition of terms to end debate. Evolutionists consistently use this kind of tomfoolery to avoid the real discussion or debate.

Obviously an opponent of ID shouldn't be used as a source to define the ID movement. ID gets the cold shoulder from the secular materialists because it dares say that both Intelligence and Design are in evidence in our world.

You are right. ID's opponents incorrectly lump it together with Creationism and yell about the separation of Church and State. In truth, the argument from design goes back to Aristotle. In his book, The Physics, he argued against an early form of random evolution theory, which came through Empedocles, and rejected it as an irrational account of nature.

Aristotle spelled out Empedocles’ theory and then answered it:

“Why should not nature work, not for the sake of something, nor because it is better so, but just as the sky rains, not in order to make the corn grow, but of necessity? What is drawn up must cool, and what has been cooled must become water and descend, the result of this being that the corn grows. Similarly if a man's crop is spoiled on the threshing-floor, the rain did not fall for the sake of this-in order that the crop might be spoiled-but that result just followed. Why then should it not be the same with the parts in nature, e.g. that our teeth should come up of necessity-the front teeth sharp, fitted for tearing, the molars broad and useful for grinding down the food-since they did not arise for this end, but it was merely a coincident result; and so with all other parts in which we suppose that there is purpose? Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish, as Empedocles says his 'man-faced ox-progeny' did.

Such are the arguments (and others of the kind) which may cause difficulty on this point. Yet it is impossible that this should be the true view. For teeth and all other natural things either invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of chance or spontaneity is this true. We do not ascribe to chance or mere coincidence the frequency of rain in winter, but frequent rain in summer we do; nor heat in the dog-days, but only if we have it in winter. If then, it is agreed that things are either the result of coincidence or for an end, and these cannot be the result of coincidence or spontaneity, it follows that they must be for an end; and that such things are all due to nature even the champions of the theory which is before us would agree. Therefore action for an end is present in things which come to be and are by nature.”

The debate over evolution didn't begin with Bush, Creationists, or the school of Intelligent Design. The debate goes back to the time of the Greeks.

The irony is, if a paleontologist finds some stone that looks like it has marks of carving or shaping, it is evidence for the presence of someone who did it.
If you find some form to electromagnetic radiation (as in SETI project) you ascribe it to higher intelligence.
When you find a bacterium in the mud, when just about all forces of nature are against it...the answer is,....
ta-da...why of course it evolved....
I would love to apply the same logic to the first
set of electromagnetic radiation we get from space(assuming we do, to date, we haven't), or some paleontologists claim that someone carved something out of stone, "why no,
it was erosion...(can't you see, mindless, purposeless, natural activity carved up those things you think are arrowheads?...?)