While many secular folks poo poo the idea of 'scientific' foundations for ID. I think most of them are behind the most recent research. Or.. maybe I am. Time will tell :)

http://www.bethinking.org/download.php?MediaID=480&Player=WindowsMediaPlayer

The main 'scientific' contention of the Bible regarding Creation is.

1/ God created the universe.
2/ God was 'outside' time in order to do this.
3/ The universe had.... a beginning.

Rather than try to capture all that was said on that illuminating talk linked above, I simply recommend that if you thought you had it all sown up and your conclusion 'God does not exist'....then a listen to Dr Ross will definitely shake your foundations. Research is very recent, though there will undoubtedly be newer....

Still.. the argument is VERY compelling... and I mean very.
Nothing to do with biology.. pure astro physics.

I love the bit where the atheist scientist has to conclude the 'Disturbing' results of establishing the existence of dark matter DEMAND that a miracle working God created the universe.
http://www.newstarget.com/020083.html

So, rather than admit this, he simply denies the proven fact of darkmatter :) I love it.... shows the 'objectivity' of the science underpinning so many whacky unbiblical ideas about origins.

I'm happy for the ideas set forth in that talk to be rebutted or refuted..after all...thats what an open mind is about :)

The supreme court in the USA ruled that ID was creationism in another guise and that there was no scientific foundation for this.

ID is a matter of faith and requires religious belief to have any foundation. Presenting it as a scientific theory is wishful thinking.

I have no issue with peoples' beliefs but justifying faith is contradiction in itself.

Democritus,

Hoyle (who had a bad church experience as a child) realized at one point, that due to the confirmation of Dark matter, the inescapable conclusion was that the Universe definitely had a singularity beginning, and that it could only have come into being OUTside the laws of physics, i.e.. 'miraculously' which points to..... what? or.. 'who' ?

Hoyle resolved this cognitive dissonance by deliberately choosing to deny DArk matter rather than accept the obvious which was, that an intelligent Creator 'made' the universe.

Now.. out of curiosity, when someone looks at a set of facts, knows the only possible conclusion is.. such and such.. then DENIES that conclusion for personal reasons..... err..what do you call that ? :)

I hope I have managed to recall the gist of the talk correctly there, but if I've not, please have a listen, and correct me.

I don't care what the supreme court said. I care more about what the science says.
I also am not silly enough to claim that this is the 'end' of the matter. Science changes, new information always comes to hand.. theories are altered etc..

But at the 'current' state of things, from what I gather, the above is relevant.
cheers.

'The US Supreme Court said it, I believe it and that settles it' doesn't sound much like science to me. I wonder if people from both 'religious' and 'non-religious' stances can sometimes fail to keep an open mind about such giant issues as the origins of the universe? While I see Democritus' point that proving faith is contradictory, having a basis for faith is not. When there is compelling evidence pointing to answers we are uncomfortable about, it does not do any of us credit to deny them out of hand. Instead we should look honestly at all the data we can find.

Quite a balanced post there chappy..

I have to correct myself also on 2 points from my first post.

1/ Its dark ENERGY..not dark "matter"
2/ It was not Hoyle who found the 'disturbing' evidence for a Creator, it was 3 Atheists.

As the talk says, how ironic it was that the paper was used as a promo for a seminar where dark energy would be deliberately denied, the week beFORE Dark Energy was confirmed :)

So, they had to deny the possibility of a Creator on FAITH grounds.... (because the prospect of a Creator had all manner of moral implications) rather than evidential... so they simply denied that Dark Energy existed.

A week is a long time in politics..and also science :)

It simply confirms what I've said for a long time. (err..I and millions of others) that 'science' is as much prone to 'faith' and bias and bigotry as anything is. But of course, just like there is a lot of great science out there, and we should never throw the scientific baby out with the 'denial of fact' bathwater, just so we should not write of ALL 'religion' or faith simply because of some bad eggs in the basket.

Right you are DB, and my heart sings 10 to the power of 97 to hear it. This might become my favorite link of all time. I could only hope my mind expands a bit faster than the universe to absorb it all!