Clay Bennett for April 09, 2012

Like educators with narrow minds. The theory of intelligent design is not necessarily religious any more than Darwin’s theory of evolution. One doesn’t need to preclude the other as both have scientific backing and can be compatible. We have gotten so used to being polarized in our culture that we automatically jump to one side of a controversy and won’t listen to anything that doesn’t fit our extreme. I am guilty of this and I will try to change..

http://www.creationresearch.org/board.html

These creationists certainly have advanced pedigrees. :)

Given the behavior of the so-called superior animals, my sticking point is not the word “design”. But I can’t buy the “INTELLIGENT” part. If man is God’s best work, I’m inclinded to think he’s not very good at his job.

“Why can’t evolution be a detail of creationism?” Not a problem for me.

Evolutionists have Not explained why all higher forms of life have chromosomes as the blueprints for constructing organs and bones. Evolution should produce DIVERSITY in reproduction. Something is MISSING in the Theory.

The same argument can be advanced for the illogic of a super-being. I will agree however that it is arrogant to cast man as “most advanced most intellegent life form”. It is also pretty depressiing.

creationism is crap. the people who believe that also believes that the flintstones was a reality show. then, I throw a fossil at their heads. if that doesn’t work, then, I give them radiation and tell them the half life of that element is 10000 years which is more than the bible’s 6000 years.

Guess we should shoot for somewhere in the middle? How about “Evolationism” or Crealution"? That would blow some minds! One side of the controversy could invent new theologies for an evolving creator and the other side could find “scientific evidence” for a creating evolver! Whole new religions could spring up over night and both sides of the controversy could focus on some other burning question. Like “the Apocalypse”?

Your grasp of probability is appallingly poor.

Every “counter” to evolution on this posting is decisively disproven, misinformed, misunderstanding the science, or outright wrong. Guys, you have to quit quoting FoxNews or Creationists and go check out the science. It’s pretty cool stuff. I’ve been a long-time supporter of the NCSE.And ID was declared religious by a BUSH-appointed judge in the Dover case. Sorry, folks. Evolution is real: your assertions are not.

“That’s a lot of possibilities” Still, it is not enough to produce a human.

Bravo! Took the words right out of my mouth, and said them better than I would have.

Brilliant response! I was going to say “I don’t consider willful ignorance a viable lifestyle,” but I think your comment is pithier.

>snort< “Faith”, sure. In much the same way as I have “faith” that the sun gives out light, that the earth orbits the sun, and that I am currently sitting and typing on the keyboard of a computer. To be honest, it doesn’t take a lot of faith to simply go along with evidence.

“Once you have life, everything goes fairly fast” …Show me all the BIG changes in life forms for the last 6 Thousand Years of history. NOPE. These is NONE. This data scares Evolutionists!

“statistical evidence that supports both evolution and natural selection.” It is two-dimensional data. Like a flat road map, you cannot see the relief of mountains and lakes. What is visible, at this time, does look good for Natural Selection on a limited time scale. I have Tentative Acceptance of the Hypothesis of Evolution as the Total Answer in the case of Earth. Something seems to be MISSING.

“Evolution is not a hypothesis: it is a law of biology” MAYBE.Biologists/Naturalists have a bad reputation from the last 2 centuries. They have declared a Law only to discard it, over and over again. Who says they have finally got it right? Remember what was canonized before Darwin? Don’t forget Spontaneous Generation.A more recent example: At the beginning of my high school Biology class, the teacher comes in and says the NEW textbooks need an update. We are all instructed to turn to the Table of Contents and to ‘X’ out a chapter. Then we all receive a copy of an article from Scientific American on deoxyribonucleic acid and RNA. Very little in science is ‘for sure’ and will never be replaced.

“I can give you examples of evolution” I will take you up on that in a little bit. Right now, I have some heavy reading to do on the subject. I want to find out which of 4 Groups of Thought I most closely associate with. Apparently, Evolution and Intelligent Design are only half of the camps in this debate. As a side note, my church got in trouble with other religions for having a different time-line for the 7 creative periods (instead of days)- 30 years before Darwin.

“Why not postulate that someone designed fish, someone else the platypus, someone else insects, etc.?” WELL, you may have something there. I can see Angel DNA Project Teams coding for birds or reptiles or mammals, etc. They could have done beta testing on a different planet and ran thru a few Natural Selection cycles before transplanting to Earth during the Cambrian Explosion of Information. Just saying…

“I find the notion of a creator to be a complication, and Occam’s razor shaves that away”Sherlock Holmes says ‘Disprove all the possibles and the improbable is the answer’. Intelligent Design cannot be counted ‘out’.

“Bible Thumpers invoke magic”… Remember your ‘Star Trek’ and the Prime Directive. What is applied physics today would look like magic to people 2,000 years ago. Who says JC was not utilizing Natural Laws of Physics and Biology. We may demystify ‘walking on water’. Today’s scientists are pretty bright. Then, the atheists will say: ‘see, he was not divine, we can do it too.’

“Once you have life, everything goes fairly fast” EXCEPT, things have NOT gone fast for humans for the last 6,000 years. The postulate is a weak assumption.

“John W. Campbell” …be careful. He is revered by many in the science fiction community. UFO’s will come to get you. Just saying…