Ajay,
In the organic physical world man may only be 2% different to Chimpanzee. But I suggest you place a Picaso or Doyle before the chimpanzee and see his appreciation of art. I suggest you place a tool kit and timber at the disposal of the chimpanzee and he should be able to create a home only 2% less professional to the average carpenter. I suggest you teach him English and writing and he should be able to create a discussion paper only 2% less than the human brain.

You see Ajay 2% represents 100% of difference when it comes to abstract concepts, and futuristic planning. Can we employ them in menial tasks to work 8 hours a day with only 2% less efficiency. Not at all; their 2% less in their genome identity is the 100% of what makes us organically different as human. But man posesses spiritual dimensions not only organic difference, which makes us 100% other than animal - This is what defines humanity as made in the image of God. This identity is not organic, it is spiritual of the mind.

If you wish to consider yourself only 2% more advanced from chimpanzee I suggest you find a bright chimpanzee and put yourself to the test. If it turns out that you are only 2% brighter then I suggest you give debating away and let the chimp have a go.

A correction: Darwinism is not dangerous in itself, what is dangerous is how it is at times used to equate the human with the animal. As Philo remarks, 2% makes all the difference. However, I catch a whiff of dualism in Philo. The spiritual is the mental and that is what makes us different from the animals. But the spiritual has its basis in the material, it is not another sphere of being. It is just that we cannot deduce from the material to the spiritual because of the complexity involved.

As for Collinset, the difference between the human and the animal does not let us off from responsibility for nature, indeed it accentuates it.

This is the mistake you keep making, Philo. Genetically speaking, 2% genetically different does NOT mean 2% ‘more advanced’ or ‘brighter’. It is obvious that creatively, emotionally and intellectually we are worlds apart from a chimpanzee. But those features are only a small bi-product of genetics. They are defining in terms of our sense of humanity, but they are not defining genetically. You seem to think 2% genetic difference equals 2% flat across the board of features and capabilities, including art, woodwork…productivity(?!). This is completely absurd, and yet another example of your lack of understanding of evolution.

I challenge you to look at our closest ape relatives and tell me that the similarities aren’t striking. Their facial expressions, mannerisms and social behaviour are undeniably humanlike.

Not that that proves anything (the other stuff I keep talking about does), but it is important to note that what we consider to be the most defining, or most obvious features of an animal (including human), are quite often arbitrary.

Now, keeping that in mind, what are the odds that we’d be that similar to apes by coincidence, if evolution were false? 98% genetic similarity by pure chance? That alone is a million to one shot. Then consider all the other genetic similarities between different species, you’re looking at…say….a jillion to one. Not a real number, but for odds like these, new numbers probably need to be invented.

jjh, re:Popper. I haven't read much of his statements, but ISTM that though he says falsifiability is not a definitive test of whether something is science, he still considers it important. If ID is to be science, then it should be similar in many other ways to the historical sciences. I would agree in a sense, that a case could be made that evolution is not falsifiable... anymore. Now that we have so much data to demonstrate that macro-scale evolution did occur, it is unlikely that any new evidence will be of such a nature as to displace that entire body of evidence. Combined with the nature of the subject matter, evolution essentially becomes historical fact, unable to be disproven; yet it *is* supported by lots of evidence and reason. But even though no reproducible tests can be done to test it (as with other historical sciences), evidence could come up that falsifies macro-scale evolution; so I still think it is falsifiable.

John Warren, things change and those things may be based on natural processes as well, but the discussion is about biological evolution. As I have said elsewhere, there is the fact that evolution occurs, the scientific fact that Earth's species developed via evolution and the theory of evolution which explains the mechanics of the previous two.

Grey said: "Irreducible complexity is a concept that has not been debunked. I don't expect to convince you of this (...), but it's true"
What then is your response to the simple criticisms of it that I made on Tuesday the 13th? Surely if irreducible complexity can be explained by evolution, then it is not evidence of ID?

David Palmer,
"Everyone, including the scientists, can see the design in biology."
I don't think so, it's some people attributing a characteristic in order to explain something they don't understand or don't accept.

"A rather large proportion of the population cannot envisage a creation without a creator,"
So? This statement either assumes a creator or is false. Ie. almost everyone could see rain as the result of natural processes.

Would a cloned human have a soul?

Kenny,
Being human is not having a immaterial part we identify as a soul. Being human is a soul, the soul is the capacity to think, memorise, act on conscience etc. You are a soul expressed in a mortal organic body. The spirit is the capacity to think in the abstract and have a consciousness of the divine and the moral.

spendocrat,
Your capacity to read and reason indicates you are only 2% above the chimpanzee. What I said is that the 2% of genetic difference makes us 100% different to chimpanzee. Never did I equate we are only 2% different to chimpanzee's, what I was emphasing is we are far more superior to champanzee than 2%. Ajay was reducing humanity down to 2% above Chimpanzee. My point is the 2% does not represent that we are only 2% more developed than champanzees. To talk about 2% difference is a nonsense.

Quote, "You seem to think 2% genetic difference equals 2% flat across the board of features and capabilities, including art, woodwork…productivity(?!). This is completely absurd, and yet another example of your lack of understanding of evolution."