The few points you have considered so far, you have answered inadequately if at all. For glaring instance:
ID is not creationism, and can be perfectly compatible with evolution. This is why we're asking schools to teach the "evidence against evolution".[2]The text you "address" finds hypocrisy in claiming that ID is compatible with evolution while demanding that schools teach "the evidence against evolution." (Evidence which is mostly bogus and also happens to be the only intellectual content of ID.) Have you considered this?I have read papers by scientists who hope to legitimize their arguments to academia, which I regard as political correctness, but it may enable their ideas to be published to the mainstream scientists for peer review.(as in the professor who wouldn’t give a student a letter of recommendation if they didn’t acknowledge evolution. A completely LIBERAL methodology)
Let's look at another case:
The correct stance on issues like an ancient Earth, the common ancestry of organisms, and natural selection can be worked out later, after we've convinced the public that they should be rejecting at least one of these. [4]Once again the text which you appear to address raises a hypocrisy, or at least a self-contradiction, issue. It does so not shrilly but in wickedly funny caricature.Unfortunately data that would support a young universe is few and far between because of the presupposition of an old universe. Many good Bible believing scientists hesitate to take a stand on this issue because some evidence does seem to present an older universe, while other evidence begs for a young universe. Good scientists will continue to gather the evidence without positing a model till they have irrefutable evidence to support it (unlike evolutionists).
Can you really not even see it? You certainly do not address it.
You're babblind something back for each bullet item and checking boxes. Do we have Morton's Demon here?
Unfortunate word to misspell in debate, "babbling."
The text you "address" finds hypocrisy in claiming that ID is compatible with evolution while demanding that schools teach "the evidence against evolution." (Evidence which is mostly bogus and also happens to be the only intellectual content of ID.) Have you considered this?
1. Islam is a religion of peace. (President Bush)
2. ID is not creationism. (Scientists trying to get ID included in schools)
Clearly political correctness, with the idea of gradual change by persuasion. Creationism will not get by the front door of any school. The only serious ID proponents I have been exposed to have asked that schools should expose children to both theories while clarifying both are theories.
Once again the text which you appear to address raises a hypocrisy, or at least a self-contradiction, issue. It does so not shrilly but in wickedly funny caricature.
The dating methods that are used to determine the age of an artifact have proven to be unreliable, but it seems that the unreliability given margins for error would necessitate more than 10,000 years.
While in our geological minuscule lifetimes the meteors like Shoemaker Levy 9's collision with Jupiter (A totality of life ending event on earth that would go beyond dinosaurs), the rate of the moons recession (tide shifts that would minimize livable land space in the recent past), the delicate balance of the earth’s life sustaining capacity (absurd in geological time probabilities) among other evidence that suggests a young earth.
Now you can see why there is a wickedly funny caricature trying to resolve these contradictions for scientists who take all of the evidence seriously.
Be ye not quick to judge the evidence by creating faulty models prior to considering the entirety. Quantum physics is turning reality on its head. We still have many fundamental understandings that escape us, which once realized, will drastically changed the course of science, as it has done in the past. Newton and Einstein were examples of how we are just scratching the surface of knowledge that leads to more questions than we had before(Two Biblically literate scientists by the way).
God designed this rock and the life on it. We are just suggesting not taking His incites out of the loop.