[lugsoul]

So you have no intention of backing up your own charge? Nice.

However, to present a position contrary to Darwinian evolution would also mean presenting evidence (data) defending that view. We both know that's what the debate is all about. The reason you won't answer my question is that it would be an admission or a denial that such evidence exists. If the evidence exists, why isn't it being taught? On the other hand, to deny such evidence exists would be untenable. I suggest you re-read the comments and numerous citings on the site I posted.

What utter tripe. ID is not, in any way, about new or 'buried' data or evidence. It is about drawing a conclusion from data that is known and it not even slightly 'buried' or 'censored.'

Is there evidence from which one can draw the conclusion of an intelligent designer? Certainly. Is there evidence to which the scientific method can be applied to test that hypothesis? No. Could one look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion? Absolutely.

Bottom line, you charged that 'data' is being censored that would lead to the conclusion of an intelligent designer, and you continue to charge that, but you can't identify a single piece of data that is being censored.

[Nanny7]

Bottom line, you charged that 'data' is being censored that would lead to the conclusion of an intelligent designer, and you continue to charge that, but you can't identify a single piece of data that is being censored.

I believe you are misquoting me. Searching previous posts, I cannot see where I ever claimed that any data would LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION of an intelligent designer. My position isn't about proven conclusions. You would admit that Darwinian evolution position certainly has flaws. Are these flaws made available for popular consumption? At the same time, there is evidence that supports the i.d. hypothesis, especially in the micro-science fields, and math (probability). Is this evidence fairly presented? It's never been my position to proove or disproove either theory. What I have asserted is that there is a debate going on in the upper echelons of the science community and BOTH cite evidence (data). Evidence supporting both sides should be presented. This brings us back to my question to you. Do you think there is any evidence which supports (not prooves) the i.d. position? If you say no, then we can stop this right now, because you're just uninformed.