CJ Morgan,
Like the majority of the posts you make, you have added absolutely nothing to the topic except name calling and abuse of other people.

The majority of your posts make no mention of the topic at all, and you have learnt absolutely nothing from your education.

It is almost beyond belief how you were once a teacher, but considering the current state of the education system, it is understandable how you accepted into it.

Vanna,

Can I take your lack of response to me as an admission that evolution has failed no tests so far?

<<According to the laws of entropy, life should reduce in time as disorder increases.>>

Wrong.

This is the old debunked second law of thermodynamics argument you’re getting at. But evolution doesn’t contradict the second law of thermodynamics because the second law refers to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system.

On a clear day, you may notice a big bright ball in the sky that emanates heat and energy...

Need I go on?

<<However, according to the theory of evolution, life increases and advances in time.>>

You’d have to clarify exactly what you mean here by “increases” and “advances”, but if you’re making the classic mistake of thinking that evolution is like a ladder to be climbed, then no, according to the theory of evolution, life does not increase or advance “in time”.

<<So the laws of entropy and the theory of evolution do not match, and there must be a special force that is driving life forward against entropy.>>

That special force is called the “sun” (just in case you did actually need me to go on earlier), and scientists do in fact know that it's there - thank you.

So no, there is no contradiction between the laws of entropy and the theory of evolution.

<<If science stays with the theory of evolution, science may never find what that force is.>>

With this type of astonishing ignorance...

<<If anything, the theory of evolution is holding science and the pursuit of knowledge back.>>

...the only think holding science and the pursuit of knowledge back is the fact that real scientists have to waste time on speaking over, and dispelling the myths perpetuated by a very noisy and very radical and wilfully ignorant minority, rather than getting on with their jobs.

Well I rather appreciate CJ Morgan's contributions to OLO.

I do learn something from his writings, as I do from everyone else's, however 'good' or 'bad' they may be.

CJ is more than capable of speaking for himself, but I glean a lot from his scribblings, and without having a clue who he is, I rather appreciate his humour, his writings and the general cut of his jib.

Some writings have to be seen as an 'aside', a swift resposte to a fatuous comment, or an oft repeated line, such as we are all wont to do from time to time.

The high dudgeon line is one for flimsy politicians, not OLO posters, surely?

Getting too high handed and offended on this site is a bit rich, one feels.

I am reminded of a quote that might deal with times when we disagree with each other, but cannot recall who it is attributed to:

"I do wish you would learn some poetry, your ignorance cramps my conversation".

Rhian,
The reason the design issue is not dead is that a lot of people see that design makes more sense in light of the evidence than undirected mutation and selection.

You say that ID has problems with Christian theology. Possibly so, but that is largely because the ID movement is not aiming for a Christian theological position. They do not seek to ground their investigations in any particular doctrine. Their brief is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence.

For example, if we compare it with forensic science, if an investigator found a knife buried in the ground, they could examine the evidence to ascertain what actions, deliberate or otherwise, lead to it being there. They may ascribe the finding to an intelligent agent even without knowing the identity of the person. Similarly, ID proponents are not necessarily ascribing design to a particular God. They’re more aiming for a natural theology.

So while I would agree with you that a good theology should acknowledge revelation, I don’t think that revelation stands in opposition to what we can deduce from the natural world. One can complement the other. I’m sure you are familiar with Romans 1:20, which touches on both.

Regarding your 4th dot point, good science does not depend on naturalism. In the context of this discussion, such an assertion is question begging.

With regard to evolution and ID, you say that if one theory were to be disproved then this would not vindicate the other. If so, could you mention this to Michael Zimmerman? For that is what he argues in the 2nd paragraph of his article.

“a relatively neglected category of argument against ID and in favor of evolution: the argument from imperfection, as applied to the human genome,” says Michael Zimmerman.

He seems to be playing one off against the other, which is what you say we shouldn’t do. Do you still say he’s written a nice article?

As a christian, I see the concept of evolution, as just a tool like a hammer and chisel of a sculpture used to create a master piece. In this case good old planet Earth. And the sculpture is God him self! I feel sorry for the individuals in the science community, cleaver as they are. They are border line learned idiots who can't see the forest through the trees! Blinded by their own arrogance. Time I think for them to definitely get out of the square they masturbate in! and start learning the science of God. the greatest scientist and creator of all time and space, thank you very much!

vanna et al: << ...you have learnt absolutely nothing from your education. >>

That's pretty droll, coming from someone who has in this thread demonstrated his misunderstanding of evolution, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium and the second law of thermodynamics. Is there anything you got right when you studied science at high school?

TBC - thanks for the kind words. Back atcha :)