Not true--see above. Classic circular logic. ID is not a scientific concept. Someone has to prove some scientific validity first and it just hasn't been done. Science ignores ID as it does all mythology. Another unsubtantiated wild claim.
Got some evidence of this or is this simply an expression of faith? I have no problem with faith at all. Believe in whatever God you choose, just don't try to tell me that it is science.
I didn't claim that creation or a creator was scientific, but it is necessity of causality. At some point something happened without a cause.
Wrong. Evolution has already been proven as fact. There is no legitimate debate on this. There is only a debate of ignorance vs. reality. We have observed it in and out of the lab. Just because people choose to remain ignorant about evolution does not mean that it is still in doubt. The process of Evolution has already been proven. This is why ID is so dangerous. Most people in this country do not even have a baseline understanding of evolution.
That's fine. I can live with that. That's not my problem with ID. ID may be an acceptable philosophy for the origins of pre-Big Bang existence. I disagree, but hey, I cannot say 100% that there was no creator. Evolution is compatible with the concept of God. Maybe part of God's experiment in creating life was to observe the order resulting from the chaos, which is a hallmark of evolution... I really wanted to discuss ID vs. Evolution in our schools, so if I conceed that all pre-Big Bang theories are equally plausible, can we get back on topic? If not, that's cool, but I'd rather discuss the original topic because we have a lot more information to go on than pre-Big Bang hypothesis... The problem with ID is that it casts doubt on evolution, which has been proven long ago. It is also a thinly veiled attempt to reframe the arguments for Biblical Creation in a wrapper of legitimate science. If they were just honest about what their agendas were, it would be easier to accept their positions. However, they throw out just enough sciencey sounding terms to confuse the masses, who already suffer from a overall lack of good instruction on the topic of evolution. Most of the harbingers of ID are phoney "scientists" who have very questionable credentials. If there were evidence for ID, do you really think that 99.9999% of relevant sciencists would ignore this evidence? I'd venture to say most scientists are interested in discovering the truth, and it isn't ID.
Yes we see evolution in the lab, but we haven't "seen" the evolution of man from a previous being. We can put (in the case of my lab) virus on cells and passage the virus until we see the virus change sequence to enable itself to better infect those cells, but unless you know of some reference I don't, no one has yet followed monkeys and watched them evolve into men. As of now, all we can do is look at the DNA sequence data which strongly suggests the theory of evolution of man, but by no means proves it. Prove is such a dirty word in science. It's considered an 'over interpretation' of the data. A true scientist will only ever use the word prove when talking about his/her own data, never about anyone else's. Our results merely suggest, albeit a rather strong suggestion.
Of course we can't observe the evolution of man from a previous being. It took millions of years. What we can do is observe rapidly reproducing organisms like certain bacterias, and follow them through thousands of generations. Lo and behold, speciation and evolution are observed. This would not happen with ID. If you want to see evolution occurring in front of your own eyes, will lizards work for you? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm yes Nobody has ever claimed that monkeys became men. That is a caricature of evolution. And impossible. You do know that evolution takes vast amounts of time in most cases, right? Seriously, read the article I linked. There's your direct proof. Nope, that's not all we can do. Also, why do you keep parsing it out to say "evolution of man"? Mankinds evolutionary process was no different than the process of plants or animals. Irrelevant. Source? I would venture to guess that you are not a scientist. How would you know this? Ever hear of peer review? Evolutionists do it all of the time. ID people do not. Who are you referring to when you say "our results"? I take it from your lack of understanding of the topic that you are not a scientist in a field related to evolution such as Biology, Paleontology, Geology, etc...
Wow. How is this relevant to ID vs. Evo? What minority is that? Cajun? And thanks for the complement, but I don't think I'm smarter than the "rest of the world", and wouldn't want to speculate my intelligence vs. the "rest of the world". That isn't fair because I am one man, and I'm sure the combined intelligence of "the rest of the world" surpasses mine. That's alot of people's collective intelligence, after all. :huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh::huh: Maybe I'm not as smart as you think I am, because I don't understand how your point has any relevancy to the topic... Are you done soapboxing yet?
Hopefully simpler than understanding what this sentence means. Of course complexities are a result of not understanding the true nature of the Universe. Hence, SCIENCE! It does hurt to be open to possibilities, when they conflict with facts and reality. What does will and love have to do with god? Do you think if one doesn't believe in the Hebrew god that he cannot love? I don't know how science defines will. I'll give you his number if you want to call and ask him. I would reckon that science defines him as homo-sapien, but I've seen evidence to Neanderthal origins as well...
First, you started the question begging. See post 33. All I did was answer your question from the Blind Watchmaker. Second, if all you were saying and implying is what you posted here then you would get little issue from me, but you are pushing an agenda which seeks to replace faith and belief with science. That encroachment is no different than trying to insert creation into science without letting it stand the rigors of the scientific method. I think you are being just as intellectually dishonest as the pseudo scientists pushing ID. The philosphical proofs for God are just that philosphical. It is writers like Dawkins who create danger by trying to apply them to scientific scrutiny.
