Rockhound, what has the big bang got to do with a discussion of evolution? Or are you just lumping it in with other things you don’t understand?

You say that the theory of evolution could use some competition. Well for 150 yrs now Darwinian natural selection as the process by which the diversity of life has developed (not the origin of Life itself), has faced both competition and opposition. Every time a scientist or a student contemplates evolution at a critical level the theory is tested, challenged and changed. How many thousands of times have thousands of the best minds 150yrs challenged the theory of evolution?

Still going strong? You bet.

In fact the more a theory is tested (if it doesn’t fall over immediately) the stronger the theory becomes.

Ever wondered why there is no massive push to have id taught is university science classes? Could be a massive conspiracy of atheist materialists too afraid to face change, but im betting it’s got something to do with there being not much of a demand for pseudo biologists.
I guess school boards are much easier to convince.

rockhound also asks how new DNA is written (ill ignore the choice of verb), basically, like all the processes of evolution as series of simple steps repeated a few hundred thousand times yields complexity. Every one of us is an entirely unique organism, our genetic code a 50/50 combination of our parents DNA in a configuration that has and will never be repeated. So new genetic code is created in a continuous process that with millions of repetitions results in diversity.

on the question of the intermediate stages, well firstly that assumes a state of completion (there are no intermediate because its all intermendiate), secondly all the species alive today (a tiny fraction of those that have lived) are the sucessfull ones, the ones who out fought, out competed, and literally out ate their competition, everything else is dead.

Here's my obligatory response to that arrangement of trite and baseless statements. But first I would like to propose one simple guideline, if you lack a basic understanding of the evolution or any other scientific issue or (and I know this is asking too much) *anything else*, then don't launch into a spiel rejecting that thing which you know nothing about.

Some fairly basic points:
-Scientific theories don't get proven conclusively. It's not maths.
-ID isn't a scientific theory.
-ID tells us nothing.
-ID has no evidence supporting it.
-Evolution is incredibly well supported.
-ID hasn't provided anything unexplainable by evolution. (Including "irreducible complexity")
-There has been no "relatively recent discovery of a certain kind of complexity".
-Evolution isn't about how life began. (Hence abiogenesis, the big-bang, universe in general etc. is irrelevant.*)
-Evolution is compatible with religion.
-Evolution is unguided, accidental and random in the same way that every other natural process is.
-Components of biological features don't evolve seperately.

*To reduce how many more times I'm going to hear these:
-There is no "before" the big-bang, the theory currently suggests that it's the *first instant*.
-There is evidence that things spontaneously come into existence.
-The probability of this universal configuration existing is 1. It is otherwise indeterminable.
-Abiogenesis doesn't involve the development of modern-day cells.

Amid all the non-sequitors and appeals to authority the author has laid out arguments that only shows his inability and/or unwillingness to cure his own ignorance. Not possible to explain how the eye developed? C'mon! It isn't difficult to muster the miniscule amount of intellectual effort to consider how that could have happened (hint: see my list above), or to look for the answer. Anyone who can't fathom how heaps of changes to simple things make them complex really isn't suited to scientific inquiry.

Similarly, quit bringing up Pascal's wager. All I ask is a tiny bit of critical evaluation for whatever notions you find "neat". Yes, that means I don't want to hear about how men think about sex every six seconds either. And debunked proofs of God aren't proofs.

Science confronts the reality that gives us creature comforts ,time to think and invent some more; and time to indulge ourselves in religious thoughts.

Religion represents our aspirational self but has no logic or discipline to unravel the complexities of our universe.

Intelligent design is based on percieved anomilies in science which we seemingly cannot explain with our present knowledge.

Religion is based on our arrogance of wanting to transcend this mortal existence.Religious people often want the science to fit their ideals rather than facing the reality of survival.

Which is our more trusted and true servant?

Rob88 claims "Anyone not teaching Dawin is guilty of censorship on an extraordinary scale". My response is "Anyone refusing to allow ID to be taught alongside Evolution so that students can make up their own minds is guilty of censorship on a grand scale". People like Rob88 scream against censorship, but once in power, are the worst censors of all.

Stan 1 states "Fanatics always seem to want to get at our kids". I agree. You see it in the left-wing Secular Humanist ideas rammed into kids by athiests who love the theory of Evolution because it suits their Secular Humanist views. There is no such thing as" an inquiring mind" allowed. You toe the line or else no pass.

White Wombat says "All scientific positions are merely theories from Newton's theory of gravity to those descriing elecromagnetism". I am sure Sir Isaac Newton would be very disappointed to hear that his LAW of Gravity has been
downgraded. Drop a brick on your paw Mr. Wombat and see whether it's only a theory or an accepted Law.

It's an eye-opener to see how the Evolutionists are RUNNING SCARED at the prospect of having competition for the minds of students.

Most of the emotive horror and fear displayed in posts here gives evidence that a belief system is being challenged which will effect how the world is viewed.

Because of the features of observed pattens of design we can understand reality and predict normal outcomes. A functioning eye will always see, a functioning brain will always think etc. The reality is we are familiar with workable design. Good science looks at natural design to learn how to make better products. We are inclined to ignore the obvious - the design features we see in our universe give us clues to best scientific practise using natural orgainic products. Medical physics must evaluate the design and function of the organ to recreate a replacement, things vastly lesser than the original design fail to meet the need.

Science as we know it just proves what is already there. One needs to believe in evolution as much as in creation. Evolutionists have nothing to fear except the truth. The scientific method must be applauded for it seeks to find the truth. Therefore when science classes entertain the possibility of creation it is prepared to seek the truth. This is not an either or situation as science is just a method to an end - verifying what is true. ID/Creation challenges us to think about our origins. Creation or evolution - you choose. This choice must be given to our children through education.