Replies

Name one imperfect design!

Are you sure you intended to direct your post to me?

I am not an evolution proponent even though I think the theory contains many factual elements, i.e. observations, and has some interpretive power, many assumptions are made by the current flavor of it (as always has been the case) which contradict my axiomatic beliefs (e.g. the truth of the Bible). I realize science is not required to comply with articles of faith, but it is also not required to contradict them. Look at Pasteur's work. He was a great biologist, even more than Darwin, but his more practical discoveries were the result of his hypotheses conforming to his Biblical faith.

My point was about ID (a view which I am not committed to defending as science, but perhaps could be scientific rather than philosophical, if it is postulated correctly.) Evolution proponents attack ID as not falsifiable on the one hand, and as falsified on the other. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. These contradictory attacks demonstrate that the evolution proponents are indeed agenda driven whether they admit it to themselves or not.

I pointed out before that one of the best arguments of evolution proponents against ID has been greatly diminished. They argued for years that genetic "errors" could be identified that were common between man, apes, and other animals, demonstrating that we had common ancestors. Recent developments in genetic research have shown that it is likely that many genetic "errors" were propagated through viruses rather than inheritance. Score one for ID.