Replies

Try to apply scientific methodology to evolution. You can't. I've noticed that before evolutionists even begin to test the theory of evolution, they automatically assume that it is true. Not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you admit your prejudices. But I've never seen a follower of Gould or Dawkins who could admit this. It is quite reasonable to look at the evidence presented and come up with another view. ID itself presents questions that the followers of the religion of evolution haven't been able to answer and so do their best to discredit them.

Now, personally I don't know if evolution exists or not, but I do know that some of the greatest frauds perpetrated in the name of science have been done by evolutionists.

I've seen arguments against Behe's "mousetrap analogy" and while it is not perfect, none of the arguments that I have seen against it are more than superficial. Even I, a mere layman, can easily see that.

Also every rebuttal to the ID argument that I have seen equates ID with creationism. While many creationists are IDers, the two philosophies are not the same, and it is very superficial and shallow to make the claim.

But one of the biggest holes in current evolutionary theories is that lack of explanation for the evolution of information, which even Jay Gould admits is a problem, and refuses to give a straight answer too.

I wonder where Physics would be today if those who championed Quantum Mechanics had been systematically persecuted and shutdown by the Newtonians to the degree that IDers are by the Darwinians today.

Oh, and BTW, even evolutionists cannot agree amongst themselves. The punctuated equilibriationists (of the Gouldian school) roundly vilify and themselves are roundly vilified by the traditionalists (of the Dawkinian school) with all the fervor of an old-time revivalist preaching repentance to the sinner.