"etes" demonstrates a mutation in the possible combinations of characters available to the expression of ideas. One might conclude it demonstrates accidental combinations and demonstrates the lack of involvement by intelligent design. However because there were previous experiences by the observers with character combinations was there any semblence of intelligence involved. The researchers concluded from their previous observations of design features that it was meant to be read intelligently as eyes. Considering the frailty of the organic chemistry involved it demonstrates the possibility that even under intelligent guidance mutations can occurr.

Jose,
The earlier species that may have resembled our body structure was not human as we know today; i.e. having our full human capacity. To be human means having the same range of genes available in the human species pool. Being considered human with the level of intelligence as we have today has only been around 10,000 - 12,000 years.

Good to see we have returned to the article. The paragraph Grey quotes (4/11 2:33:55pm) has many problems:

It begins with those who "reject the possibility of a designer". Being a scientist or science teacher does not involve this step, although an atheist usually takes this step.

It then critically says "They [atheists?] define scientific inquiry narrowly ...", which is merely suggests that the author prefers a wide definition. And that's about the "origin of life" which is not about Darwinism but abogenesis.

When I read this paragraph, I see a statement about what the author believes atheists believe and why. It implies that the decision to not teach ID is based, not on science, but on ideology.

I don't see a statement about what science is (or isn't or should be) in reference to the scientific method or the objectives of school science. The definition of science is mentioned but not challenged. Nor do we discover why the author thinks ID is science.

P.S. Square bracketed words within a quote are not part of the original quote.

You have your opposition by the short and curlies there, Jose!
What a challenge. Pretty much the equivalent of someone in a maths class saying that their faith dictates that 2 plus 2 makes five, and it is up to the teacher to instill within them an understanding of mathematics.

What amazes me is the religious believe that they can still fool people with their empty semantics. Years ago christians used violence to force their views, now its their younger mental siblings, muslims. Because of Christianities past failures, they now resort to poor semantics. I wonder if they will ever see how simple and controllable their minds are, that they can be so sucked in by nothing but thought forms.

An ID that IC'd existence in its completed form, is purely a thought form, just like the creator itself. The biologist Sheldrake describes them as “morphic fields”. It can only control those of little understanding, as its power and influence is primitive. There is however ID within existence, it is called change, that's the scientific proof, change can be seen, measured and altered, ID can't. ID can't explain human ability to create and mutate in positive ways, GE, nano's and stem cells show that ID is false.

As our understanding of the universe grows, then we may find that at some time, someone came to this planet and influenced it in some way. After all, the possibility of there only being us in the universe, is beyond calculation. I am sure that once they discover space is actually another dimension that can be moved through instead of across, ID and IC will exit, as we join the universal world.

Words are not logic, its their content that defines the logic. Space as a transitionary dimension is more plausible than ID and logical.

You can see in the proponents posts, how they say the same things over and over. They just try to make us think that they are saying something different by changing the words around. Fools only really fool themselves.

Philo' with respect, I asked for an islamic view on ID, not a christians view on islam.

I looked up wikipedia to see if there was an answer to Jose's question. The answer given is Hominini of which there are two living surviving species: chimps and humans, and five known extinct species: Paranthropus, Australopithecus, Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Kenyanthropus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini)

The relevant wiki project page warns that "Primate taxonomy is by no means fully known or agreed upon" and lists the references used. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Primates)

Thanks David,
So the thought I wanted to project was this one.

Say humans evolved from chimps (it may be true or not, either way I can live happily with either). Now, if a species evolves because they adapt to environmental pressures, I have 3 questions:

- What was the environmental pressure to which the species adapted, thus evolving into humans?
- Why are we not observing species such as chimps nowadays adapting to this supposed environmental pressure and thus evolving more like humans? (If our ancestors had to adapt to it, why don't the chimps nowadays have to adapt to it?)
- If this environmental pressure is no longer around, why did it go away?