1 What was the environmental pressure to which the species adapted, thus evolving into humans?
2 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?
3 If this environmental pressure is no longer around, why did it go away?

1 As well as “pressure” there is also “opportunity”. Adaptability and free-will are "qualities" commonly found in humans and less so in other orders. They are the qualities most likely to propel humanity to a level above and beyond lower orders.

2 Maybe the inherent intelligence of chimps etc. limits their adaptability and response to what humans know as free-will. Some have also suggested the benefits of a high protein diet commonly associated with fish and meat contributes to brain development and from that higher / advanced brain function which separates humans from other, predominantly vegetarian, primates.

3 Maybe the environmental pressure still exists and has been forgotten about in the transcription of history across the ages.
Lets face it the theologians were the original scribes and they used very selective memory in recording human history. This question is similar to asking “Why did the last Ice age end?”

So as man has evolved he has risen intellectually to realise we need morality, ethics and laws for a degree of social order but they are not exclusively religion based and need no intercession from a priest-class to have merit. Humanity, being adaptable and able to deploy “freewill” into whatever attracts the individual mind allows for almost any known obstacle to challenged and ultimately diverted or overcome provided we discard the powers of repression (Galileo v the Pope etc) who would deny exercise of that will.
.
Packaging up religion into the pseudo-science of ID is a last ditch attempt by the religious minded to find relevance and justify rules to inflict on the rest of us who inhabit this increasingly secular world.

BOAZ, forgot to say that the gospels, resurrection etc. are of a much lower evidential quality and their support is far less objective than the would-be return of sight.

Philo- Who was it that said, "'Even if I see it with my own eyes, I will not believe. The only conclusion I can draw is my etes are deceiving my brain.'"
I guess you have a problem with nuance, I said it would suggest a higher power. And of course I didn't see it with my own eyes, but it's true that's not conclusive, but not because of faulty senses. All it would tell me is what happened, and while the circumstances may imply the cause other issues must be considered. It's not some large, distinctive and explanatory miracle. That's just me trying to be as reasonable and objective in my skepticism as I can.

Jose, if you exclude from the classes misleading or false statements, ID could be explained to high school level in about 5 minutes, more if it's used along with other "alternative" notions as a counter-example of scientific methods. I would be incredibly surprised if any *species* we evolved from still exist, that would require an amazing degree of adaptation to an unchanging environment. We are still apes and hominids, mammals etc. Who says other apes aren't evolving in similar ways to what we did? For all I know they are, but it's hard to compare.

Grey,

"Fairly strong indicator" ...riiight. At least Russell gave reasons elsewhere. Yes I suppose if you construct an asinine & self-contradictory strawman then that strawman will indeed be self-contradictory. Whatever valid points you may or may not have are rendered useless by your failure to present them and to honestly and intelligently deal with issues that have been raised.

I see that aware of the atheistic consequence of your position, you choose to re-affirm it. But you're dishonesty is showing again, with you now "misunderstanding" my "logic".

Col regarding Chimps:I heard an experiment recently whereby a chimp in one cage had access to two levers.One to feed himself and the other to feed a companion in the next cage.Even with the begging of the hungry chimp the chimp on the levers just fed himself and ignored the pleas.The inference was the humans have a higher developed sense of empathy which may have helped our evolution through co-operation.

Not a conclusive experiment though, since one chimp may have just disliked the other.

I thought that I'd have a go at Jose's questions:
- What was the environmental pressure to which the species adapted, thus evolving into humans?

The environmental pressure was the loss of forest areas and the expansion of grasslands. Some continued to live in the forests (chimps), while others managed the survive on the ground (humans). An ability to move on two legs improved once's chance of surviving.

- 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?)

Forests still exist, but if they don't then the chimps will either adapt or die out. The absolute dominance of humans over the whole environment suggests that they will die out.

- If this environmental pressure is no longer around, why did it go away?

Look about. Don't you watch the news? The environmental pressures are hundreds of times worse. Desertification is on the march. The Earth will probably change more in the next 100 years, than it did over the past 10,000 years.

Grey/Alan Grey

Have you cast aside your previous nym? If so, why? Is it so that you can adopt some subtle variants on your previously held opinions without being accused of inconsistency? If so, nothing is visible yet.

Let's take a look at your latest spray at me:

"Pericles: As I have said and explained, you are in error because you ignore that both positions appeal to intelligent agency, which is the only consistency in the positions that relates to the question at hand – Quoting Dembski and Behe clearly indicates this consistency is not something I have made up."

Once again, you propose that two different starting points "appeal" to your cause. You ignore the fact that the agency that set the question was not you, but Gallop, and it should therefore be their definition that we respect, not one that you appear to have made up on the spot in order to support your pet theory.

"You have never addressed this point and so I can only assume you are either off your medication or wilfully ignorant."

I keep addressing "this point". I have offered a contrary opinion, which is that the question was designed to separate the two views, creationism and ID, not amalgamate them. Gallop's narrative bears me out, and in this instance, as the survey's authors, they have more authority than Dembski or Behe. It doesn't matter to me whether you accept this or not, but your resorting to personal abuse does give me the deep satisfaction of knowing that you are totally bereft of an intelligent reply.

Have a great day.

David L,
Good answer, I'm quite satisfied with that.

Another question for anyone, (I'm sure it's been asked before)
What was the cause of the Big Bang?