Once again I'm in almost total agreement with Col, only - while I fully concur with his point about Mozart - I can remember a time when Eric Clapton *was* God :)

Yes Col,what intelligent designer invented George Dubwuya?He has trouble completing a sentence.His administration has a panic attack every time he adlibs, since not even he knows what's coming next.

Has it occurred to anyone that our intelligence may only work in this universe.If this designer be from another universe,it would all seem unintelligible to us.We are dealing in the realm of wishful,hypothetical thinking since the universe is a lonely place and our human kind's technology has out stripped our ability to cope.

Let's keep science and ID separate,since we will need the cold hard analysis of science to solve all the problems we have created for ourselves.

Sorry, Brian, but your opening paragraph is a significant distortion of what Darwin proposed. You say his "theory (was) that life forms can and do adapt to meet new circumstances, within limits." What Darwin actually wrote is that life forms vary because of their inherent genetic variability. Some of the variations that occur are better adapted to their environment and these organisms are obviously better suited to surviving and prospering. Other variants are less well adapted to their evironment as a result of their genetic variability and these organisms die out. The term 'survival of the fittest' means that there is no plan or intelligent design in the way that offspring are different from their parents. Random variability resulting from the way that organisms swap genetic material during reproduction and produce unforeseen variations simply results in some individuals that are able to adapt and some that can't.
If people like Brian Pollard want to see ID taught in our schools, it can be taught in religious classes as a possible article of faith for school children to consider. But ID is not science and it is a corruption of scientific principles for people like Brian to pretend that it is science.

Note – When I refer to creation science I'm not referring to ID and vice versa.

DavidLatimer

Creation Science includes natural selection and mutation, so it copes quite well and has a direct explanation. Perhaps you should try to understand what you are attempting to criticize.

Looking at comparative genomics and saying ‘See, this proves we evolved from lower apes’ or other such nonsense is begging the question. You are assuming that similarity implies close evolutionary relationship.

Re Pax6, you have no given any refutation of any of the points or conclusion, you have merely stated that you disagree. Make an argument, otherwise you statements are useless. The article that itself agrees with me that octopus/human eye evolution WAS considered a case of convergent evolution because of distant ‘evolutionary relationship’. The genetic data made them change their existing ad hoc explanation to a different ad hoc explanation. Let me make this clear as a science educator. THAT IS NOT HOW YOU DO SCIENCE! Ad Hoc explanations are pseudo-scientific crap.

You may have posted my exact words, but you took them out of their context and put them into your own different context. I have pointed this out and you ignore it. I can only surmise that your lack of objectivity is due to inherent bias.

You continue to work under the misapprehension that science is metaphysically (I.e. religiously) neutral. This is obviously not the case as scientific assumptions and theories have metaphysical implications. For instance, just look at how Einstein and Hubble were dismayed at the metaphysical implications of some of their findings. You seem to want your idea that morality and religion do not really have anything to do with objective reality taught. That is not neutral either.

A question for everyone. If evolutionary theory has not already shown conclusively that it’s mechanism’s can account for irreducibly complex features then why is it commonly accepted as the explanation for said features?

Re: Creation science’s predictions. Will it matter to anyone if there are predictions that have been successfully made? Will it change your opinion of creation science one iota?

Sorry numbat, “For someone who, evidently, has never studied about God “, very wrong. I am not an evolutionist, materialist, nor a humanist, my philosophy accepts all reasonable things that can be qualified or quantified. From a materialistic view, I believe that science is much closer to fact than ID and has produced the means to do what we are doing now, utilising technology. Explain technology as a non evolving reality.

Who designed the designer. If you have a beginning, then what started the beginning. You need to explain what the material elements of the universe were formed from and where the designer and those materials came from. You should be able to do that if as the religious say, they talk to god and he talks to them. As chosen ones, he will tell you the substance, beginings and quanifiable evidence of his plan, so that you can convince us all, won't he.

When ID can solve that, then you may be able to say, it is a reasonable concept. All concepts like our time and space, are really just illusions when you look at the time frame of the universe. They help us to gauge our reality. In what way you could say, that ID helps us see a quantifiable reality.

If the designer were intelligent, then would it not have removed aspects of violence and cruelty from the “own image” design, or is what humans are, a truthful image of the designer.

How does ID explain the designers apparent plan that is destroying the ecology of this planet.

How does ID explain why the designer determined that humans were the most intelligent, considering somes approach to life and living on this planet. Would not an intelligent loving designer have chose one of the more placid, living in harmony with nature species

BOAZ David

“But in a Christian school, we will teach that God created, and teach science only as far as it has gone, not in an adversarial way.”

See BD the problem is in that little sentence. Some people want ID taught in schools in parallel to science and equal to science. People cannot have it both ways. In Christian schools the argument becomes will be we must teach god as creator but then we must also teach other religions creationism and science founded evolution equally. So you will see God pitted against aliens etc as the creator.