Replies

To get this thread off on the right foot, and to avoid endless repetition of ancient material, we provide a very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: < b>Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution.
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Freq uently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 19].

The strength of intelligent design as an intellectual project consists not in presupposing a prepackaged conception of a designer and then determining how the facts of science square with that conception. Rather, intelligent design's strength consists in starting with nature, exploring nature's limitations, and therewith determining where design fits in the scheme of nature.

Thanks for the link.

I get baffled on these threads because there doesn't seem to be a positive statement of what makes ID "scientific". If I understand the statement I cut and pasted from the crevo resource, ID consists of finding observations that are not well understood and claiming that these "disprove evolutionary theory".

Does ID ever make a positive statement or prediction? I didn't see that anywhere.

I think I'm more comfortable with the anti-science folks who use their computers to post their denials that science has any value. At least that's funny.