[<1/1,000,000th%]

In fact, they tend to start with obvious flaws in the evolutionary theory, for which they're immediately branded right wing Bible thumpers.

At least here I think you've hit the nail on the head. Their theories start with "evolution is wrong", then they postulate a designer. The designer is usually represented by the diety of their choice. I'm OK with that , but its not science. Maybe somebody'll dig up a designer fossil and set the record straight. ;)

[f.Christian]

"No one doubts the improbability of events. Your existence is highly improbable. So is mine. Think of all the events in just the past 100 generations which could have caused any of our ancestors to behave differently than they did. Yet all the past events happened, naturally, step by step, and here we are, so mere improbability is not much of an issue."

"The facts upon which evolution theory is based are rather well established. Mutations happen. They really do. And new species appear over time, really. And they appear in form and DNA to be related to pre-existing species. No joke, that's the evidence. In every generation, those best suited for the game of life are most likely to breed the next generation. Mutation and natural selection. And time, lots of time. They're the stuff of evolution."

"The results are always going to be seen as improbable in retrospect, but that's how things happen. It's such a reasonable explanation that there's no need to wave it all away and grasp instead for an external "designer" for whom there is no evidence at all.

"So I don't see ID as an "honest attempt" to deal with improbability. Rather, it's a clever attempt to confuse the poorly trained public with slick (but unscientific) patter."

353 posted on 9/19/02 2:24 PM Pacific by PatrickHenry