Kent Hovind was not one that I had in mind, there are many others that are much more qualified.
Two evo’s set out to determine what the statistical probability of spontaneous generation of life and then develop into the life we have today, it was 1x10 to 140th power, not good odds.
Recently on PBS there was a discussion that life came from space rocks that hit earth. I thought they were so cocksure it came from primordial slime.
Evolution as has been portrayed has serious problems at best.
Maybe we are a virtual reality game by a very intelligent being and the plug is about to be pulled for lack of interest.
I do not understand why we just don’t bring on the debate that gives both sides adequate and fair opportunity to present their case.
Virtually everyone who believes in a God believes in God as creator. Which means A form of creationism. Does not imply a formal support for "the" ID theory or mean that evolution was not an mechanism of change.
Establishing the "no god" god in schools is a religious imposition too.
I'm now locally seeing some posted street warfare graffiti signs demanding that the public abandon all gods. Nice tolerance from the athesist supremacists in our midst.
And it's a bogus argument, since you are calculating the odds of life as we know it. For example, I can do the 20 coin tosses:
HHTHTTHHHTHTHHTTHTTH
The odds against that are 2^20, or 1 in 1,048,576. If you'd asked me beforehand to bet on that sequence, I'd probably decline as the odds are way against me. Yet here we are after the fact, with that one in a million result. In fact, that one result was just as likely as any other result. It is only betting on one end result that made those one in a million odds.
Recently on PBS there was a discussion that life came from space rocks that hit earth. I thought they were so cocksure it came from primordial slime.
That's the great thing about science, things change as more research is done and more knowledge comes available.
I do not understand why we just don’t bring on the debate that gives both sides adequate and fair opportunity to present their case.
That's a great idea. And the one that survives and comes into supremacy in the scientific world will be the one we teach to the kids as science. Oh wait, that's already been done.
“Two evo’s set out to determine what the statistical probability of spontaneous generation of life and then develop into the life we have today, it was 1x10 to 140th power, not good odds.”
The evo’s can deal with the odds nicely by making the making the universe bigger and older. The anthropic principal was used to prove that there are infinite parallel universes with infinite opportunities for the improbable to occur.
The creationists/IDers don't show up.
It's called science.
You participate by publishing. Your results are then discussed by people competent in the field. That's where the creationists opt out. They want their 'arguments' judged by fellow creationists.
Barring that they want the debate in a high school classroom where, in reality, nobody is qualified.